Senator SESELJA (Australian Capital Territory—Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters) (12:36): It's great to get up and make a contribution on the election and the government's agenda on what is a very important debate. Certainly, I think that the 2019 federal election will go down as a critical election for many people. It was an unexpected election result but an election where I think it's very clear—and I think this was clear in the analysis both before the election and after—that the Australian people were faced with a very clear choice, and perhaps a clearer choice than they had been faced with in many, many years. It was a choice between the strong economic record of the Liberal and National parties in government, strong borders and strong communities, and a return to the deficit and despair offered by those opposite. The Liberal-National government went to the election saying to the Australian people that if they had a go they would get a fair go. We support hard work, we support aspiration and we support a decent safety net for those who are struggling at various times in their lives to look after themselves, and we absolutely support people getting on and living their lives, making decisions for themselves and their families and being supported to do that in the best way they can. The government wants to say to those quiet Australians who supported us that we want to continue to deliver for them, that we are grateful and that we are humbled and honoured by the opportunity. I want to put on record again my thanks to people here in the ACT who have given me the opportunity and the great honour and privilege to be back in this place, and the government more broadly thanks those who, right around the country, made the decision to support the Liberal and National parties. We want to honour that by continuing to build on what we've been able to deliver in the last six years. We want to continue to go well beyond that. We want to create a further 1.25 million jobs over the next five years, building on the 1.4 million jobs created since we took government in 2013. Having got the budget back in the black, we want to continue our sound and sensible management of the nation's finances so that we can consistently and responsibly pay down Labor's debt. This year's budget surplus, the first in 12 years, is a starting point for $45 billion in surpluses over the next four years. This is a significant step on the road to being free of net debt by around 2030. Because of our strong budgetary and economic management, we were able to promise much-needed tax relief to hardworking Australians. We're pleased to be delivering this tax relief for people right up and down the income scale—starting, most importantly, with low- and middle-income Australians. We are putting more money in their pockets so they can choose how they spend it: spending it on their families, on the essentials, on those little extras that improve people's lives or on contributing to their local communities, as so many Australians do through generous giving. Whatever choices they want to make we want to support them, because we don't believe that the government knows best. Governments are very important, but we trust the Australian people to manage their money and, wherever we can, we want to return more of it to them. As I said, there was a really clear choice between that kind of strong budgetary management, strong economic management, strong borders and lower taxes versus what the Labor Party were offering. That would have destroyed our economy, whether it was through their raft of huge additional taxes hitting retirees, hitting superannuation, hitting home owners and renters or hitting income earners. This was a radical tax-and-spend agenda put forward by the Labor Party. Of course there is much reading of the tea-leaves, soul-searching and all of those things, but the attack on aspiration, I think, was absolutely at the heart of what the Australian people were choosing to reject when it came to what the Labor Party were offering. I was interested in some of the analysis that said that, if you were a family with kids, if you were renting or if you didn't have a six-figure salary, you were more likely to swing towards the Liberal and National parties. I think that is critically important. Wee hear the rhetoric about the top end of town. Those people are not the top end of town; those people are hardworking Australians, often on pretty modest incomes—perhaps aspiring to have significantly higher incomes in years to come. They are saying to government: 'Well, get out of my way. Yes, we want you to deliver on the key services'—which this government is doing—'and we want strong economic management and budgetary management, so you can invest in health, education, defence, roads and other infrastructure—the NDIS, the PBS,' as we are doing. But these quiet Australians don't like being told what to do by government. They are good and decent people who don't like being told what to do and what to think. They're not going to cop the sort of sneering condescension from some people—people like Jane Caro, who said on election night that she was going to stick two rude fingers up at the truculent so-and-so who has voted to turn backwards. They're not going to cop it from people who say they're racist because they believe in controlling our borders. They're not going to cop it from people who say that they're bigots because they believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These are the quiet Australians who have made their voices heard very strongly at this election. And I think they're not going to cop it from greenies and others who fly into town and tell them that their industries should be killed in order to make green activists feel better about themselves, as we saw in Queensland. I want to talk about one of the issues that I think was very critical in the election. It was critical in the election because the housing and property market is absolutely critical to all of us. It's not important just to the building industry, although there are hundreds of thousands of jobs—millions of jobs—in the property, building and construction industries. It's very important to those industries, but it's not important only to them. It's not important only to investors, although we know there are many Australians, and many low- and middle-income Australians, who invest in property as a way of providing for their families. We absolutely support them, but it's not important just to them. It's important to home owners, of course, as owner-occupiers. As we know, that is the largest asset that most of us will ever own, so an attack on property and on housing is an attack on Australians across the board. And, finally, it's also important to renters. Analysis has shown that high-renting electorates swung more strongly to the Liberal and National parties than other electorates around Australia. I don't think there are any surprises there, and I think this is one of the things the Labor Party missed. As we were going around the country and talking to people about the consequences of Labor's housing tax, their proposed changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax, we heard that renters actually would have been some of the hardest hit. Yes, you would have been hit if you were in the industry. Yes, you would have been hit if you were an owner-occupier. Yes, you would have been hit if you were an investor. But renters would have copped an absolute whacking. And it's important that people understand that this is a policy that the Labor Party still maintains. This is still their policy, the housing tax. We can go through the dozens of analysts who said: 'Your house price will go down. Thousands of jobs will be lost in the industry, and it will hit economic activity as a result. And renters will be whacked.' During the election the Labor Party tried to claim—and they would still, no doubt, maintain this—that actually it wouldn't increase rents. But we saw some really detailed analysis from a large number of different groups, who all came to the same conclusion: if you take away what is effectively a rental subsidy, if you have a special or different tax treatment for investment in residential property to what you have for investment in shares and other areas, well, guess who's going to pay for it? It'll be those who are renting, those who are already doing it tough and those who, in many cases, are doing it tougher than the rest of the community. We heard this from the Property Council, the Housing Industry Association, academics at the University of New South Wales, the founder of Binvested, the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, SQM Research and dozens of other organisations; we heard them all coming to this conclusion. And SQM Research, who I think were rated by TheAustralian Financial Review as the most accurate residential property forecaster for about three years running, so come with significant credentials in analysing this, talked about this. So let's look at what Labor's policy, which they still hold, would do. It would push rents in Perth up $72 a week. It would push rents in Brisbane up $91 a week. It would push rents in Melbourne up $65 a week. It would push rents in Sydney up $50 a week. It would push rents in Adelaide up $56 a week. It would push rents in Canberra up $55 a week. It would push rents in Hobart up $44 a week. It would push rents in Darwin up $15 a week. Overall, on average it would push up rents in the capital cities by $67 a week. That is what Labor's policy would do, and I think that was absolutely critical to the election result. We saw absolute hubris from the Labor Party on this, and on other issues, and I think that this was the other important message. We heard the stories about the Labor Party bullying people behind the scenes, saying, 'We're going to be in government soon.' We saw the pictures. I've got that lovely picture, the 'We're ready' picture with the then Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and a number of other Labor figures—the then shadow Treasurer—all there, posing, ready the move into The Lodge and deliver their tax and spend policies. They were ready to come in and push everyone's rents up, lower people's house values, hit retirees and put more taxes on hardworking Australians, who are working hard to save for their retirements. That's what they were planning, and the hubris that we saw was extraordinary. I haven't seen anything like it in any election campaign that I've been involved with. We're all aware of the then shadow Treasurer's comment, Mr Bowen's comment where he said, 'If you don't like our policies, well, go ahead and don't vote for us.' That was him effectively saying to retired Australians, who might be hit by his retiree tax, 'Well, we don't need you.' That was the message: 'We're not going to govern for everyone; we're going to govern for the 50 per cent plus one who we anticipate will vote for us as a result of these policies.' We also saw Andrew Leigh, who is fond of demonstrating how much smarter he is than everyone, even though he's so often shown to be not across policy detail and to get the details completely wrong. He knew exactly how much money the retiree tax would bring in for the Labor Party if they were to have come into government and implemented it. Five times in one interview he was asked how many Australians would be affected by his policy, but he wouldn't answer. He ended up laughing off the question, dismissing it and claiming somehow that it didn't matter, that, because he didn't have his iPad in front of him, it didn't matter that 900,000 Australians would have been affected by that tax grab from the Labor Party. Mr Leigh was very happy to dismiss those concerns, because he thought that they were going to sail into government. There is no doubt that the Australian people responded in part to that. They responded to the higher taxes, to the whack on their home ownership, the whack on renters, the whack on aspiration and the whack on investors. We saw that throughout the campaign and on the night of the election. We've been getting on with the job. We have re-established the ABCC. We've signed free trade agreements. We've expanded the coverage of our trade agreements from 26 per cent of two-way trade to nearly 70 per cent. We've kickstarted a massive infrastructure program. These are all things we can be very proud of. We're cutting taxes and delivering the budget back into surplus, all while being able to invest in absolutely critical areas—health, defence, roads and infrastructure, disability, the PBS. All of that can be done because we're delivering a strong economy and a strong budget. I started by thanking those Australians who have supported our agenda and saying to them that we want to build on that so that we can continue to deliver good policies and that we don't take for granted their support. I would like to thank some people who did some outstanding work in the last term to highlight some of these policy issues. I would like to acknowledge a number of people in the industry who spoke out against Labor's housing tax. I was involved in holding forums around the country where we put the facts on the table in relation to what it would have done. It's difficult when you're told that one side of politics is definitely going to be in government. Some people won't want to argue against that side's policies, lest they be punished should that side come in. These people showed great integrity and the courage to say, 'This is what we believe. This is the evidence we see. We're going to make that argument, whether it's good for us personally or not.' They are people like Dave Bailey and Mark Hewitt at AFG, who really put out the messages in relation to mortgage brokers and their impacts and the impact of the housing tax; people like Mark Haron, Michael Williams, Doron Peleg, Emma Dupont-Brown, Ben Kingsley, Jock Kreitals from the Real Institute of Australia, Marissa Schulze from Rise High Financial Solutions; and people like Louis Christopher from SQM, who really put out some outstanding research that blew the whistle on what some of these policies would have done and that showed the policies would have hit a cross-section of the community. They would have not just hit jobs in the construction industry, investors and owner-occupiers but also and most particularly hit people who were renting. I think people did start to hear that message. Finally, all of us in the Senate and the House of Representatives know that it's a great, privileged position and that we can't do it without all of the people who support us in our offices and our party organisations. I'd like to pay tribute to some of the staff who assisted me during the 45th Parliament. I had some absolutely outstanding staff who worked extraordinary hours and who are very talented, very hardworking, very loyal and very bright. They bring so much, including strong values, to the way they deliver—not just for me but more particularly for the people of the ACT and the people of Australia—in the various roles that we have. I wanted to particularly pay tribute to Angela Inglis, Teaghan George, Cassandra Choake, Ben Dennehy, Veronica Hosking, Janet Parnwell, Elizabeth Storer, Matt Mitchell, Sarah Duffy, Andrew McIndoe, Zac Lombardo and Josh Goldsbrough, as well as some of our fantastic DLOs: Nicolle Sullivan, Samuel Burns, Daniel Craig, Morgan Ryan, and some of those who filled in here and there where needed. I'd like to now also take a moment to pay tribute to a staff member of mine who has moved on, who was with me for a long, long time—a very loyal and faithful staffer who after six years has left my office. When I was first elected in 2013, Sam Mullins joined my office as an electoral officer, and over the years he has been an extraordinarily effective and capable adviser. As well as being a capable adviser, he and his lovely wife, Anna, are good friends with me and my wife, Ros, and our family. Sam has relocated to Sydney with his wife, who has taken up a role at Westmead Children's Hospital. I wanted to take the opportunity to wish them well for the future, but I also wanted to take the opportunity to specially pay tribute to Sam for his outstanding and loyal service and very much wish him all the best for the next stage of his journey. Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: 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.