The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Pairing Arrangements
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (09:31): I'd just like to acknowledge that yesterday there was an error in some pairing arrangements that we have with the opposition. I apologise to the House and the opposition for that and thank the Chief Opposition Whip for his forbearance in rectifying the matter.
BUSINESS
Consideration of Legislation
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (09:31): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Senate passed the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) on 9 September 2019 and the bill was sent to the House for debate on 10 September 2019;
(b) the Government has prevented all attempts to debate and vote on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) in the House;
(c) the Government ignored a resolution of the Senate on 10 February 2020 calling on the House to vote on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2); and
(d) in May 2020, the Attorney-General said that legislation to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission would be further delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite an exposure draft being "ready for release";
(2) calls on the Government to stop blocking debate and vote on this critically important issue; and
(3) agrees that government business order of the day No. 47, National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2), be called on immediately and passage of the bill through all stages take priority over all other business during periods of government business until its completion.
Leave not granted.
Mr BANDT: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Melbourne from moving the following motion—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Senate passed the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) on 9 September 2019 and the bill was sent to the House for debate on 10 September 2019;
(b) the Government has prevented all attempts to debate and vote on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2) in the House;
(c) the Government ignored a resolution of the Senate on 10 February 2020 calling on the House to vote on the National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2); and
(d) in May 2020, the Attorney-General said that legislation to establish a Commonwealth Integrity Commission would be further delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, despite an exposure draft being "ready for release";
(2) calls on the Government to stop blocking debate and vote on this critically important issue; and
(3) agrees that government business order of the day No. 47, National Integrity Commission Bill 2018 (No. 2), be called on immediately and passage of the bill through all stages take priority over all other business during periods of government business until its completion.
It is rort after rort after rort in this place, and the government—
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (09:34): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is the Leader of the Greens be no further heard.
The House divided. [09:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:42): Is the motion moved by the Leader of the Greens seconded?
Dr HAINES (Indi) (09:42): I second this motion. The government has missed its own deadlines on introducing a federal integrity commission bill—
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (09:42): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is the member for Indi be no further heard.
The House divided. [09:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:46): The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Greens be disagreed to.
The House divided. [09:46]
The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith
COMMITTEES
Regional Australia Select Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (09:49): I have received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that he has nominated Ms LM Chesters to be a member of the Select Committee on Regional Australia in place of Mr Zappia.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (09:49): by leave—I move:
That Mr Zappia be discharged from the Select Committee on Regional Australia and that, in his place, Ms L. M. Chesters be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Fletcher.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (09:50): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio and Other Measures) Bill 2020 includes a range of deregulatory measures that will allow regional commercial radio broadcasting licensees to satisfy their local content obligations in a more flexible manner.
The bill makes minor amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 which will ease the regulatory burden on, and make regulatory compliance easier for, regional commercial radio and regional commercial television broadcasters.
Local content obligations for regional commercial radio broadcasters are designed to support the availability of local news and information that regional Australians value. The bill will introduce greater flexibility and lower the compliance burden for licensees in meeting their local content obligations, while ensuring the continued availability of local content to regional Australians.
The bill also includes a measure which will amend the Australian content multi-channel quota obligation for regional and remote commercial television broadcasting licensees. This measure is intended to assist licensees to satisfy their obligations when they have affiliation agreements with metropolitan broadcasters which mean that they have limited or no control over the amount of Australian content they broadcast.
The measures that the bill proposes will provide licensees with greater flexibility and certainty in delivering broadcasting services in regional areas to provide greater sustainability of regional voices, preserving greater choice for regional audiences.
Commercial radio measures
The Broadcasting Services Act places a range of local content obligations on regional commercial radio licensees, in order to support the ongoing availability of local content in regional Australia. This includes the general obligation to provide a minimum amount of material of local significance per business day.
The regional commercial radio industry has informed the government that it considers a number of the requirements associated with the local content and minimum services standards obligations to be inflexible, impractical or overly burdensome.
The measures contained in schedule 1 of the bill will provide industry with more flexibility in acquitting its local content and minimum service standards obligations.
The bill makes amendments to the exemption period provisions for both the local content and minimum services standards obligations so that they are more flexible. These provisions currently provide default five-week exemption periods for both obligations, over the Christmas and New Year holiday period. However, these are not the only times of the year licensees may face similar staffing and resource pressures.
The bill also removes the requirement for trigger event licensees to develop a local content plan, and replaces this with a requirement to prepare and publish a local content statement.
Commercial television measures
Currently, the Broadcasting Services Act requires commercial television broadcasting licensees to broadcast minimum levels of Australian content: at least 1,460 hours of Australian programming across their multi-channels between 6 am and midnight.
Metropolitan television networks provide regional and remote commercial television broadcasting licensees with content under affiliation agreements. Some licensees in regional and remote licence areas have faced barriers to providing the required amount of Australian content if they do not carry the full suite of multi-channels that metropolitan networks deliver. This is especially likely where metropolitan affiliates decide to schedule a significant portion of their multi-channel Australian content on a channel not carried by all regional and remote licensees.
The bill will also permit regional and remote commercial television broadcasting licensees to be deemed to have complied with the multi-channel quota obligation under certain circumstances, even if they have not broadcast the required 1,460 hours.
The measures that the bill proposes will provide licensees with greater flexibility and surety in delivering broadcasting services in regional areas to provide greater sustainability of regional voices, preserving greater choice for regional audiences.
Importantly, the bill will not lower the amount of local content that is currently available to regional audiences on commercial radio.
Likewise, the bill will not affect the multi-channel Australian content obligations placed on metropolitan television licensees, whose content forms the basis of multi-channels broadcast in regional and remote Australia. The bill also will not affect the current Australian drama, children's and documentary quotas, which continue to apply whether that content is broadcast on primary channels or multi-channels.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tehan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:57): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Education Legislation Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Bill 2020 demonstrates the government's commitment to the higher education and vocational education and training (VET) sectors, and ensures that higher education remains accessible and affordable to students, even during these difficult times.
Schedule 1 of the bill makes amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 as part of implementing the government's decision to extend the unique student identifier (USI) regime to all higher education students. The bill will assist in standardising student identifiers across the tertiary education sector by requiring students accessing Commonwealth assistance to have a USI. Starting in 2021, new students can apply for a student identifier, and from 1 January 2023, all enrolled students must have a USI to be eligible for Commonwealth assistance. These amendments will improve the government's data matching and identity verification capabilities, which will make the administration of the tertiary education sector more efficient and effective for students and providers.
Schedule 1 of the bill also amends the VET Student Loans Act 2016 to require that, from 1 January 2021, a student's application for a VET student loan (VSL) must include the student's USI. This is consistent with the position that from 2021 all new domestic higher education students will receive a USI, and with the current VET student loans application requirements, which require an application to include the student's USI if one has been assigned.
Schedule 2 to the bill introduces a measure to validate certain HELP loans and VET student loans by allowing the Secretary of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (department) to determine that certain students who, due to having multiple Commonwealth Higher Education Student Support Numbers (CHESSNs), have exceeded the HELP loan limit and allow these students to repay the resulting excess debt amount through the income contingent repayment system.
From 3.5 million unique student records, only a small group of 475 students are affected. The measure is limited to loans incurred prior to the commencement of the amendment. The amendment avoids adverse financial outcomes for both students and providers that would arise from invalidating the loans, in recognition of the fact that these students were assigned multiple CHESSNs in error.
Since this issue has been identified, the Australian government has updated the technology it uses to manage student enrolment information, including improving its data-matching capabilities. These IT upgrades will prevent this issue recurring in the future.
Schedule 3 of the bill clarifies that a student's HELP balance is taken to be reduced immediately after the census date for HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, VET-FEE-HELP assistance, and immediately after the census day for VET student loans (VSL). This amendment will ensure consistency across HELP and VSL by deeming the point in time at which a student's HELP balance is reduced to be the census date or day.
Schedule 4 of the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to support full-fee-paying students to start or continue their studies, and in turn to support universities and other higher education providers to continue teaching. As part of the COVID-19 Higher Education Relief Package announced on 12 April, schedule 4 to the bill removes the loan fee that applies to undergraduate students accessing a FEE-HELP loan to pay for their studies. The loan fee exemption will apply for a six-month period, for units of study with census dates from 1 April 2020 to 30 September 2020.
So that Australians can continue to upskill and retrain, this measure will reduce the cost of study for full-fee-paying students in semester 2, 2020. Prospective undergraduate FEE-HELP students who may be considering commencing or returning to study may be incentivised to study in semester 2, encouraging continued student enrolment for providers. The bill gives effect to the government's commitment to provide certainty to the higher education sector, so the sector can remain agile while meeting the needs of industry and contributing to the economy.
Schedule 5 to the bill contains minor technical amendments to improve the clarity and operation of the Higher Education Support Act, including to amend the definition of a 'course of aviation' to include an 'approved course' as defined under the VET Student Loans Act 2016, and update a university name.
These amendments demonstrate the government's commitment to the higher education sector, and to ensuring that workers in Australia are able to continue to upskill and retrain, even during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (10:02): I move the following amendment:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) affirms the need to determine a site for the storage of radioactive waste, particularly in light of Australia's international treaty obligations;
(2) acknowledges that nuclear medicine is fundamental to our world-class health care system; and
(3) supports a parliamentary committee inquiry into relevant matters, such as:
(a) concerns raised by and the involvement of interested parties, including traditional owners;
(b) costs, funding arrangements, and employment levels associated with the facility;
(c) potential impacts on affected communities; and
(d) the adequacy of the Community Investment Fund and related compensation".
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 specifies the need and location for a storage facility for radioactive waste. It is a fact of contemporary life and our modern healthcare system that nuclear medicine is used, often crucially, to help many, many of our fellow Australians. Australians depend upon nuclear technology for their medicines. It is used in the diagnosis of heart disease, skeletal injuries and a range of cancers. On average, two in three Australians will benefit from nuclear medicine in their lifetime. In fact, ANSTO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, can deliver over 10,000 patient doses of nuclear medicines each an every week.
But, of course, with these benefits comes the responsibility to manage our waste. There are two types of waste that would be stored at the proposed facility. One is low-level waste that consists mainly of disused surgical gloves, masks and gowns. The other type of waste that will be stored is intermediate-level waste, typically by-products of nuclear medicine production as well as spent fuel rods from the ANSTO OPAL reactor.
Australia's radioactive waste is currently stored in more than 100 sites across the country, including hospitals and warehouses and, of course, the ANSTO facility at Lucas Heights. Whilst I think there is diligence and attention to that storage, it's not the case that that storage could be classified as secure or purpose-built. Radioactive waste is predominantly the by-product of nuclear medicine, and if we are to continue to support nuclear medicine then we must have a dedicated storage facility. There are also international conventions that we are bound by that state that countries which produce nuclear waste also have an obligation to store it. As one of the top three producers of uranium in the world, we also have a moral obligation to store our own locally produced waste.
Professor Andrew Stuchbery, head of the Department of Nuclear Physics at the Australian National University, has expressed support for nuclear medicine and a storage facility. He said: 'Radioisotopes are widely used in nuclear medicine procedures for imaging and diagnosis. This waste is sent offshore for processing, but the residual smaller volume of intermediate-level waste must come back to Australia under international obligations and agreements. Thus, Australia must find a long-term solution for storing this nuclear waste. My considered opinion is that the benefits of nuclear medicine greatly outweigh the costs of the waste management, for which safe technologies do exist.' That's the end of that important contribution by Professor Stuchbery.
It is completely understandable that there is apprehension around the ultimate site of a nuclear waste storage facility, particularly in any nominated community. However, that is why information, detailed questioning and a clear consultation are so very important in making this significant decision. It is worth understanding the international precedents for the storage of nuclear waste. Comparable countries—France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States—all have centralised purpose-built waste facilities. Farming regions like Champagne in France, the Lakes District in the United Kingdom and El Cabril in Spain, and areas in the United States like Utah and Washington state, also have such facilities.
In Australia, the main repository is, of course, at Lucas Heights. The Lucas Heights facility has limited storage capacity and is licensed by the independent nuclear safety regulator, ARPANSA, to store waste only on a temporary basis. That is on the condition that a plan is developed by 30 June this year for a permanent disposal solution. Lucas Heights produces about 85 per cent of our nuclear waste, and the department has said:
The matter is pressing. Our current store facilities will be full sometime in the next decade, maybe a bit sooner
That was said last year. It's important to note that ARPANSA, the regulator, said in their submission to the Senate inquiry that the requirement for ANSTO to provide future plans for storage and disposal as part of their licence conditions is not necessarily a requirement to relocate waste currently held at Lucas Heights. We do need, I think, clarity on those somewhat contrary contributions by the department and by ARPANSA.
Australia has been looking for a place to store this waste for more than 20 years, and it's time Australia had a single purpose-built facility. But, if we are to establish a national waste facility for radioactive waste, we should make sure we do it once and we do it right. While it's proposed that low-level waste will be disposed of at the new facility, what will happen to the intermediate-level waste is less clear. The proposal from the government is that intermediate-level waste will be moved from Lucas Heights and stored temporarily at the Kimba site until another site is established to permanently dispose of this waste. This will mean double handling of this waste at some stage further down the track. It won't be a problem for anyone in this place today, perhaps, but it will be for those who follow in our footsteps.
We all know this has been a vexed issue for this nation for many years. Much work has been done on progressing the establishment of a radioactive waste facility at different sites across the country, only to be scrapped for various reasons. If we are to finally settle the matter, we need to ensure that this site is the site that satisfies the criteria better than anywhere else.
The government claims that the site, Napandee, near Kimba, was chosen due to geological and environmental suitability as well as stronger community support than the alternative site, namely Hawker. Napandee, a property 20 kilometres west of Kimba, was nominated voluntarily, and a community ballot was held based on the municipal boundaries. As part of the ballot process, it was established that native title holders were not residents in the local government area and therefore not eligible to cast a vote in that particular ballot. It's worth noting also that 36 nonresidents were able to vote as they have property interests that are rateable in the Kimba local government area.
The Kimba ballot was unsuccessfully challenged by the traditional owners, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. They argued that the council contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by excluding them from the ballot. This decision was challenged, and the appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court was, I'm advised, unsuccessful. A separate ballot of traditional owners was run by the Barngarla corporation through a private company to cover Barngarla nation. Of 209 eligible voters, 83 voted against the facility, and none voted in favour. While the vote was unanimous, 126 eligible voters did not return their ballot papers in that privately held ballot.
I want to be clear with these numbers because I have seen some fairly creative accounting gymnastics used to further the arguments of both proponents and opponents of this site. I think we also need to be clear that there is no native title over this site, because it has been put to me there is, and I have confirmed there is not. However, it is also true to say there are parcels of land with native title neighbouring the site. I am advised that, while there are no Barngarla people currently living within the Kimba township, the surrounding area is used for camping and hunting by Barngarla people who live in places such as Whyalla and Port Augusta.
While we support the need for a storage site—indeed, former Labor governments, as much as this one, have been very much focused on the need for that—we note significant concerns have been raised, including from the traditional owners, as to whether the decision excluded the traditional owners from a ballot process. I think that might come down to, in part, the electorate. What boundaries should be drafted? Who should be able to vote in this process? Of course, the government has asserted that the municipal boundaries were proper and appropriate, and there's an argument for that, and, of course, there are competing arguments that First Nations people, beyond the municipal boundaries, should have had a greater say.
Some questions still need to be asked and answered, and that is why we recommended a Senate committee inquiry be established to inquire into a number of issues, including, first and foremost, the threshold issue: why is this legislation needed? The minister currently has the power to nominate a site. In fact, the previous, Labor government enacted legislation to empower the minister to nominate a site. It is therefore incumbent on the government to explain why they want to legislate the precise location rather than use the provisions pursuant to sections 14 and 18 of the existing legislation. So the minister does have a power; the minister is choosing not to use that power but instead to have the parliament make a decision. That was not the approach that was being considered by the previous Labor government. That is why we legislated to empower the minister, and the government is choosing a different path. We really haven't been given an explanation as to the need for that to happen, given the minister's currently existing power. That would be something we could explore in the committee inquiry.
Further, why didn't the government put forward a plan to establish a radioactive waste one-stop shop—that is, disposal of low-level waste as well as a permanent facility for intermediate-level waste? What constitutes broad support of the community? I think we need to flesh that out and consider it through this inquiry. The previous minister, Senator Canavan, assured stakeholders that broad community support would be the key criterion for choosing a site, and I think the government would argue that they have completed that guarantee, but there are others who challenge the proposition, and I think it's worthy of examination. What is the cost of the proposed facility and how it will be paid for? The explanatory memorandum makes references to user fees for storage and the establishment of the site. However, the financial impact of the fees, even if revenue-neutral, is not detailed and will be explored by the Senate committee.
The committee will also need to examine the unknown cost of purchasing, leasing, the land on which the site will be located. As part of the bill, there is a community development package associated with this facility, worth up to $31 million. The sufficiency of the government investment fund and related compensation could also be further analysed by the committee. The package as it currently stands includes $20 million paid out of money appropriated by the parliament through another act, appropriations legislation, in long-term support for the region. There are $8 million in grants for four years to strengthen the economic and skills base within the region and $3 million to support delivery of an Aboriginal economic heritage participation plan. Those are very good propositions, certainly in terms of providing greater support for the region, and, if this site were to be determined, Labor supports that approach in principle. But the questions are: is it sufficient? Is there more that can be done? Has there been sufficient engagement with the Indigenous communities? Has there been sufficient engagement with the farming communities of this region? I think those sorts of propositions can be tested, but in principle we support, of course, extra resources going into this region under this process. Again, that can be examined.
How many jobs will be created, both in the construction phase and ongoing? We understand that the Kimba area has been facing economic challenges of late, with people selling up due to the drought and leaving the area to find work. The jobs created during the construction and ongoing running of the facility will provide some incentive for those people to stay in their community. It has been claimed that the facility would provide 45 jobs. We would like to explore this further, with a focus on training opportunities for local people and commitments to outcomes for local Aboriginal communities. So, even if we have problems with the threshold question as to whether we could support the legislation, these are the provisions that should also be examined by a Senate inquiry, and that's what we would be intending to see happen.
What other sites have been suggested and why were they not suitable? For many years, but also most recently, people have suggested the site could be located somewhere in the Woomera area. I understand that, when asked about Woomera, the government say that the 2016 Defence white paper has forecast investment and additional activity as a barrier for locating the facility there. Are there any other reasons why it couldn't be located in what is really non-productive land, rather than using the sparse, arable land there is in South Australia? It's fair to say we'd like to examine more fully why Woomera is not an ideal location. It is a very large area: 122,000 square kilometres. This is a very small parcel of land by comparison. What are the impediments? Invoking national security or national defence without really any explanation is not sufficient. It's not adequate. We need to have a greater understanding of the government's concerns there. They may well be entirely legitimate but they haven't been fully explained, and therefore they should be fully explained.
What assurances can be given to the workers that will transport current and future waste, to people who live along the route where the waste will travel and to Kimba residents that this waste does not pose a risk to them? We understand that there are already existing risks; I think this is really important to note. I've said that back to stakeholders. For example—I think we need to be very upfront here—as I'm advised, there are roughly two million people living within a 20-kilometre radius of the Lucas Heights facility in Sydney compared with 100 people living within a 20-kilometre radius of the Kimba site. I think that's a significant issue.
Obviously there are transport and logistical issues right now. I accept that we should examine what would be the transport and logistical issues and challenges that might be faced by government and government agencies in dealing with this site, but we need to have that in the context of a comparison with existing risks, however low they may be. I think that's only reasonable. It's something that we should flesh out. It's not like doing nothing means there is no risk. In fact, we've already heard that we need to, at some point, find a permanent site. We don't have a permanent, purpose-built facility. It's not ideal to have it, I would think, in the largest city, the most populous city, in Australia—at least for a while. I think Melbourne is about to eclipse Sydney in a few years, but that's another story.
To put things into context is therefore really important. While the transport of low-level waste is very low risk, those risks increase when transporting intermediate-level waste. The community must be assured that nuclear substances and waste are handled safely and with care, and that's something we can examine. I'm sure the government, the department and others have been thinking about that.
How will this affect the broader Eyre Peninsula community, particularly primary producers? There are concerns. There have been concerns raised from primary producers across the Eyre Peninsula that their reputation for providing clean, green crops may be impacted by having the waste facility on that peninsula. Because there's no domestic market and all grain is exported, the farmers have expressed concerns about international perceptions and brand damage as a result of producing grain in this vicinity.
As I said earlier in this contribution, I'm advised that there are similar facilities, and even purpose-built facilities, in regions of other countries which produce very important products—like champagne, for example. So it may well be that that question can be answered. But the farmers who did not support this—and, of course, over a third of the vote even in the municipality did not support the location of this site—have every right to have their concerns aired and have, hopefully, adequate answers to the concerns that they may have about any potential risks to their business, their brand or their products. I think that's something worthy of examination. And that's why we wanted to have this examination prior to bringing the bill on. We did advise the government that we would rather have that examination so we could be fully informed, as an opposition, to make an informed decision.
We need to seek clarity on the long-term plan for storage and disposal of nuclear waste, particularly intermediate-level waste, in this country. How long is intermediate-level waste going to be stored in what's called a temporary facility, and does the government intend to locate the permanent storage and disposal facility at Kimba or will we have to go through this process again?
That is an important question. The government may not have a complete answer to that. I'm not suggesting this proposal hasn't got merit, but we need to know the thinking beyond this given that this is not the end of this matter. It would be interesting to see if the government has any further plans beyond this proposition.
If we are to continue to support nuclear medicine we must have a dedicated storage facility. We all agree upon that; it would appear that most if not all of us agree on that. Equally, support for this facility does not extend to support for accepting international waste or for a local nuclear power industry. There are concerns among some. I am not saying these are concerns that have been substantiated through evidence, but people do raise concerns that there may be other intentions that are not declared about providing a facility for a local nuclear power industry. That is something the government can answer in a Senate committee process, which may allay concerns which have been raised in relation to this.
When we talk about nuclear matters, it can be somewhat concerning. We need to be as clear as we possibly can in terms of the intentions—what we're seeking to do and what we are not seeking to do—in relation to these matters. We know we need to store this waste; we just need to make sure it is in the most appropriate spot, because it will most likely be there for a very long time. There are many questions still to be answered. The Senate committee is best placed to ask these questions, so that's where we'd like to have those answers provided. As I said earlier, I advised the government that we will not be supporting this bill until these questions have been sufficiently dealt with. Therefore, as it stands, we will not be supporting this bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Dr Leigh: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (10:27): The shadow minister's contribution today indicates why the Labor Party does not have the capacity, let alone the readiness, to govern in this country. This issue has been explored for many, many years through successive governments, including Labor governments. Yet today we do not know what Labor actually thinks. I could not understand the shadow minister's contribution. Are they for it or are they against it? It's one thing to stand in this chamber, as he did, and beat his chest claiming that a former Labor government empowered the minister to make a decision to move on. But Labor in opposition doesn't want a decision to be made. They want to kick the can down the road back into the long grass—again, their complete incapacity to make decisions.
I believe that many of us in this chamber will benefit from nuclear medicine at some point in our lives. Whether it's an X-ray, a health screening or a diagnostic test for ourselves or for our loved ones, we should all be truly grateful for the advances made in nuclear medicine. Nuclear medicine uses radiation to provide information about the functioning of a person's specific organs or to treat disease. In most cases the information is used by doctors to make a quick diagnosis of a patient's illness. In some cases radiation can be used to treat diseased organs or tumours. According to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, known as ANSTO, one in two Australians will have some engagement with nuclear energy in their lifetime, thanks to the radioisotopes produced at Lucas Heights, a nuclear research reactor which has operated in Sydney for over 60 years. Ten thousand patient doses of ANSTO nuclear medicine are delivered every week across Australia and New Zealand alone, particularly for cancer detection and treatment.
Worldwide, over 10,000 hospitals use radioisotopes in medicine, and about 90 per cent of the procedures are for diagnosis. TerraPower, the company started by Bill Gates to design a new generation of reactors, is also engaged in seeking to develop radioisotope generators that will be able to extract potentially life-saving material from radioactive elements that could lead to what is called alpha therapy, involving much better targeting of cancer cells with less damage to healthy cells.
With advances in health care, the demand worldwide for radioisotopes is increasing and will no doubt continue to grow. ANSTO has the capacity to supply 35 per cent of the global demand for molybdenum-99, which is the precursor of the world's most widely used diagnostic imaging agent. ANSTO's facilities conduct research for other medical and industrial purposes, and their reactor is also used for the irradiation of silicon ingots for the manufacture of electronic semiconductor devices.
Beyond medicines, nuclear technology has applications for nutrition, agriculture and disease control. It is important around the world for making foods safe via irradiation, which kills disease-carrying bacteria and can significantly reduce the estimated 25 to 30 per cent of global food production that's currently wasted through spoilage.
In agriculture, nuclear technology is playing an increasingly important role in pest control by sterilising insects which are then released back into the environment. It uses other functionality to trace fertilisers for their use and effectiveness, and even to detect leaks in water and storage systems. Nuclear technology can also be used to analyse the pollutants in water and measure water quality. It is a technology which I believe Australia should embrace proudly.
However, the term 'nuclear' so often, unfortunately, breeds fear and concern in some areas of the community. Australians have tended to have a scepticism about and an opposition to many aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, evident over many decades. While that is certainly not unique, it is pretty rare among First World countries that, for the most part, have embraced many, if not all, parts of the nuclear cycle. Despite this historic scepticism, Australia plays a very significant role in supplying uranium right around the world, to Europe, to Asia and to the United States especially. We have the world's largest reserves of uranium and we are currently the world's third-largest supplier.
We also have great depth in our legislative and institutional capability in this area. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, for example, is a comprehensive piece of legislation. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 is also vitally important because it unequivocally rejects any expansion of nuclear weaponry beyond those countries which already have them. As I've already mentioned, ANSTO, which operates the Lucas Heights reactor, is a tremendous research group with deep knowledge of every aspect of the nuclear cycle. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and the Australian Safeguards and Non-proliferation Office are other important parts of what is an ongoing and very successful, well-informed effort by successive Australian governments to remain very closely plugged in to developments across the cycle as it evolves.
The long route to this bill exemplifies in some key ways the scale of the challenge we have in dealing with many aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle in this country, and, I believe, helps point the way to a reasoned and rational discussion on such matters. Australian governments, coalition and Labor, have been seeking to establish a storage facility for low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste in our country for decades. There has been a lot of resistance; there's no doubt. This bill finally identifies Napandee as a specific site for that facility, with strong majority support from the local community in Kimba on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula.
The Napandee site was identified following four years of community consultation and technical assessments across the three short-listed sites. It was chosen from those sites voluntarily nominated by landowners, and it was assessed consistent with the current legal framework. The government is satisfied that the Napandee site will safely and securely manage radioactive waste and that the local community supports the project and the economic benefits it will bring. This bill is part of that commitment to be well informed and to provide detailed knowledge and much consultation about what is intended at the site in Kimba. It builds on vast experience and efforts to assure the Australian public that we can manage nuclear waste while keeping them absolutely safe.
Australia has decades of experience in managing low- and intermediate-level waste, which is what is planned for this site. In actual fact, the risks are very low—extremely low. What we mean by low-level radioactive waste is things like paper, gloves, cloths and filters that contain low levels of radioactivity and generally require minimal shielding during handling, transport and storage. Of the radioactive waste produced by ANSTO, 92 per cent is this type of low-level waste. I have visited the facility and inspected their waste storage areas. The Napandee site will also deal with some intermediate-level waste. Intermediate-level waste is largely associated with the by-products of nuclear medicine. It emits higher levels of radiation and requires additional shielding during handling, transport and storage.
The waste from these processes is currently spread right across the country, in more than 100 storage facilities across Australia. Plans to store this waste in a national facility will mean the waste will be consolidated into a single, safe, purpose-built radioactive waste facility which is consistent with Australian government policy and also with international best practice.
To store and low- and intermediate-level waste you need to get some things well sorted, no doubt. You need a geologically stable area. Vast areas of our ancient island continent are very stable, including the area that's been chosen for this above-ground facility. You need means of safely transporting waste, and we have those too. It is important to note that around 10,000 doses of nuclear medicine are safely transported in approved packages on public roads and commercial flights to around 250 hospitals and nuclear-medicine clinics in Australia and the region every single week. In fact, each week ANSTO safely transports 2,000 packages containing radioactive materials across Australia. Radioactive material has been safely transported for around 60 years, and there has never been an accident resulting in a significant impact on the health and safety of people or the environment. The in-built safety features of the packages, regulatory controls and emergency response procedures have always worked to ensure safety, and I have absolute confidence that this will continue. It's all pretty routine, quite frankly, given the significant quantities of low- and intermediate-level waste created and safely dealt with around the world over the past decades.
Internationally, large radioactive waste facilities operate in Europe, Russia and the USA, including in well-known, high-value agricultural and World Heritage tourism regions. For example, the Lake District in northern England is home to the UK's largest and most-visited national park, awarded UNESCO World Heritage site status in 2017. The UK low-level waste repository is also there. This facility receives thousands of visitors every single year. The Champagne region of France, renowned for its grapes and wine and including some of the most expensive agricultural land in the world, also hosts a major low-level and intermediate waste facility. The local community is currently bidding to host a new waste facility. Local population, farm output and tourism numbers have all increased over this time.
I believe the people of Kimba deserve great credit for delivering a strong majority in favour of accepting this facility, notwithstanding the very low level of risk that we are actually dealing with. They have displayed common sense in coming to grips with the issue, and their performance is undoubtedly a milestone in dealing with issues in the nuclear fuel cycle—issues that are so deeply embedded in our country in so many ways. As earlier canvassed, scepticism about virtually every aspect of the nuclear industry runs unusually high in this country, so it is important to recognise that the people of Kimba have weighed the evidence and they've come down in favour of hosting the facility. Just as commendable is the effort undertaken by the government and ANSTO to ensure that people were given all the information they needed or wanted to make the decision that they have, comfortable in knowing they have all the data needed to make the right and, I believe, the sensible call.
In addition to the ministers who have taken carriage of this issue, including the current minister, Keith Pitt, I wish to acknowledge the member for Grey, Rowan Ramsey, who has led his community by empowering them to engage and to have their say. In doing so, he has ensured that a calm, sensible, deliberative discussion has taken place over many years. For that, I believe, the chamber should be very grateful.
Openness and transparency are clearly key when engaging with the nuclear fuel cycle. I'm delighted that this bill comes before the House not just after extensive consultation but also after the prior informed consent of the local community. With that, I am happy to commend the bill to the House.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (10:42): I rise today to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and on the amendment moved by the shadow minister to the motion for the second reading. From the outset, I feel it's important to note my views on nuclear energy. I want to make it clear that I oppose nuclear power becoming part of our energy mix, and I will touch on this again later. I believe that this is important to note given the context of the legislation. I do acknowledge, however, the importance of establishing a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. Nuclear technologies are a part of our life, particularly in health care and new emerging medicines, and it is vital that we have facilities such as those dealt with in this legislation.
Paediatricians, in particular, have used nuclear isotopes for a very long period of time for the diagnosis of certain childhood conditions such as bone abnormality, bone infections and some solid tumours. In areas such as the brain, where it is difficult to get proper imaging, nuclear medicine has been very important. So it is a vital industry in medicine and is becoming even more important as there are now some targeted treatments, particularly for certain cancers, where nuclear isotopes are attached to a particular protein that can then be targeted to a specific cancer cell so that radioisotope treatment can be undertaken with minimal damage to normal tissues. This is evolving technology and one that is rapidly increasing its use around the world.
I note and understand, however, that matters such as discussed in this bill are quite contentious. In fact, they're extremely contentious. It's all very well to say that we need a nuclear waste management facility, but where that is to be placed can be quite controversial, hence the long and many decades delay in developing such a site. It's therefore vitally important that there is, as the member for Fairfax has noted, transparency and widespread dissemination of knowledge about this facility. I think, therefore, further consideration should be undertaken, and that should be undertaken by referring this bill to a Senate committee to consider such important issues and also to inform the public about these issues.
I'd like to say that not far from the boundaries of my electorate is ANSTO's facility at Lucas Heights. I visited the facility and it is indeed very impressive, as is its team of dedicated and highly trained staff. I recently had the pleasure of touring the facility, visiting ANSTO's new reactor, OPAL, and meeting many professionals who are doing a great deal of work in the field of nuclear science and nuclear medicine and who are training some of our emerging nuclear scientists and nuclear medicine technologists. I'd like to extend my thanks to the staff from ANSTO for their hospitality and for the opportunity that they afforded me.
The reality is that the main storage facility for nuclear waste at Lucas Heights is very limited. Much of the waste that's stored there has been there for many, many years. There will come a time when—and pretty soon, I think—we'll run out of space at Lucas Heights to store this nuclear waste. Radioactive waste is presently stored in more than 100 locations across the continent, and our stockpiles of nuclear waste have built up over many decades. Discussions around the storage of nuclear by-products are important to have, because we cannot afford to ignore our responsibilities to find suitable and safe storage facilities. It's very important to understand that these storage facilities will need to be stable for hundreds and probably thousands of years. Many of the radioactive isotopes that are stored have half-lives measured not in seconds, minutes or days but in hundreds of years or even thousands of years. There is at present no effective way to destroy nuclear waste, so it all has to be stored. Unfortunately, that means that we need to maintain these facilities for many, many years—long past our lifetimes.
Australia's nuclear radioactive waste is predominantly the by-product of nuclear medicine. It is unavoidable that we do have to store it. I am concerned about some on the other side talking about nuclear energy being a part of our energy mix in the future. In particular, some in the New South Wales National Party and the National Party in other parts of the country talk about the growth of the nuclear energy industry in Australia. I am worried about this waste facility being used to store waste from nuclear energy reactors. This is a waste product that we will be committing to our children and our children's children for many, many generations to come. I think that is something that we should not be accepting.
However, we do need nuclear medicine. As I've already mentioned, it's used in many ways, particularly in paediatrics, but in adult medicine it's now used for things like heart disease—diagnosing coronary artery disease very effectively, diagnosing cardiac muscle abnormalities very effectively. It's used very effectively also for diagnosing skeletal injuries that are not apparent on other forms of imaging, such as X-rays. In particular, it's increasingly being used in cancer medicine both for diagnostic purposes and for treatment. Nuclear medicine is an expanding part of modern medicine, and the storage facility is very appropriate for this. It's estimated that one in two Australians will use nuclear medicines in their lifetime, and I suspect that the proportion will be even higher in the future. ANSTO can deliver 10,000 patient doses of nuclear medicines to more than 250 hospitals and medical centres across Australia and New Zealand every week and has plans to expand further.
There have been a number of issues with the OPAL reactor. At present, I believe, it is not at full capacity. Whilst there are a number of issues and concerns associated with the storage of nuclear waste, it is vital that we have an appropriate facility to store the nuclear waste and make sure that it's safe and is able to be used a long time into the future. I want to be quite clear again: my support for the ANSTO facility does not in any way indicate my support for nuclear power. Labor's support for such a facility does not extend to support of a nuclear power industry in Australia, nor does it mean that we support taking nuclear waste from other nations. That is very important. Don't forget our children and our children's children and many generations will be responsible for this waste in the future. It's not going to go away. A nuclear storage facility is necessary to deal with Australia's present radioactive waste, for the waste presently produced by ANSTO and through nuclear medicine and research, and not for anything else. I firmly believe that we need to expand our waste storage facilities, and having a one-site storage facility would be excellent.
The idea that we should use nuclear power in Australia, however, is a very lazy one. It's an ill-conceived notion that reeks of a lack of planning for the future. I'll not mince my words: the idea that we should consider nuclear power in Australia, to me, is abhorrent. Other countries that have a nuclear power industry are very rapidly reducing their exposure to nuclear energy. We consistently get thought bubbles, however, from those opposite that perhaps now is the time to consider nuclear power alternatives. The answer is: no, we must not. It's not clean energy. It provides waste products that will be around for thousands of years. It's a lazy option because people who suggest it assume that we have the skills, capacity and technology to deal with potential issues in the future. We don't, and there have certainly been nuclear accidents at other power stations around the world. It's a lazy option because it places unknown and incomprehensible burdens on future generations and on the environment. 'No matter; we'll just assume that in 200 years people will have flying cars and will invent something to prevent earthquakes, clean our water tables and clean our environment in the case of a radioactive leak.' I know that's not going to happen. Also, there will be no way to prevent another Chernobyl occurring in the future at some place in the world. We don't want that option in Australia. Australia is not the USSR. It's not Russia. We don't want that energy mix here.
We have members opposite who put out feelers for the nuclear power industry all the time. There should be no dissent. The Australian people, I believe, have made their views clear. Whilst we do need a nuclear waste storage facility, this is for nuclear medicine by-products only. We cannot afford to be complacent about this, and the referral to the Senate committee to examine our nuclear waste storage facility options is very appropriate, as the Australian people need to be informed. I'm not being an anti-scientist or a sensationalist. We do not need anything other than a nuclear-medicine industry in Australia. We do not need nuclear power and we certainly do not need to take nuclear waste from other countries. I'm very worried that the beginning of this nuclear storage facility debate is a trojan horse for that option. The half-life of radioactive material produced in a nuclear reactor will last thousands of years, and I'm not going to do that to my children and my children's children. We ought to have alternatives for our electricity, of course, other than fossil fuels, and we're rapidly developing them with alternative energy sources. Nuclear should not be part of the option.
There are huge benefits, I do admit, from the use of nuclear technologies in medicine, also now expanding into industry. Its use in things like pipelines, for a whole range of issues, particularly looking for leaks, has already been explained. It's now available for industry to look at minor fractures in industrial equipment. It is used in a whole range of industrial options. But, primarily, nuclear products are used in medicine in Australia and their use is expanding. It is important that the storage facility we're talking about in the legislation before the House is expected to store low- and medium-level waste, but not high-level waste. It is expected to operate for hundreds of years. We do need to make sure that we have other things in place, like appropriate transport mechanisms for this low- and intermediate-level waste.
It is envisaged that the sort of waste we have will be able to be stored in a safe environment, with no geological risks, for many, many years. However, it's very hard to guarantee that forever. Many unanswered questions remain on the permanent storage plans, particularly for intermediate-level radioactive waste. It is important that the general public understands the issues regarding this, and the risks involved. In contrast to the member for Fairfax's comments, there are always risks in storing nuclear material. It is very important that we protect the Australian public from these. Nuclear waste is unavoidable, given the role of nuclear medicine in our modern health care, and we need appropriate facilities to store such waste. However, the concerns and issues raised by members of the community need answers. A lot of communities are watching the government's approach with great interest here. Communities around the towns of Napandee and Hawker have a keen interest in what the government will do in relation to the storage facility. But, also, communities across Australia are concerned with the government's apparent laissez-faire attitude to the topic of nuclear energy. Our shadow minister has been right to point out recently that the communities of Jervis Bay, Townsville, Gladstone, Perth, Western Port in Victoria, and the New South Wales North Coast will be appropriately concerned with the minister's openness to exploring nuclear power. They, after all, are just a few of the more than 100 communities that had previously been touted as potential sites for nuclear reactors and nuclear dumps. In fact, at Jervis Bay people can still see an excavation that was supposedly for our first nuclear reactor for power. Many communities and many others deserve to know where the government will stand on the issue of nuclear power. I commend the shadow minister's amendment.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (10:57): Let me say from the outset that I am both surprised and disappointed at the member for Macarthur's comments, and particularly the shadow minister's comments, on this bill, the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. The members are either seeking to deliberately mislead or they are completely ignorant of the facts of what has happened through this inquiry and haven't been reading the reports that have been issued and the questions that have been answered along the way. It would be disappointing if that were the case—but it shouldn't be the case. Kimba is my home town. It's a small, successful farming community in the north-east of Eyre Peninsula. A general description of the country is 'marginal cropping country', but a drive through the district will demonstrate success—good fences, good sheds, good farmhouses, modern machinery, well-maintained and first-class technology, and an immaculate town. Kimba has been good to the families that have lived there for generations, and to this day there is a good future there in farming, for those who remain. However, like virtually every other non-coastal farming community in Australia, our population is in long-term decline. Modern agriculture, a wonderful high-tech industry, does not need the people it once did. As our population declines, our football, netball, tennis and cricket clubs are reduced. Our schools, hospitals, banking services and speciality shops are all under threat, not just in Kimba but in similar communities right across Australia.
Kimba has been resilient. We still have most of the services I have listed above, but, for instance, for three out of the last four years we have not had a resident doctor. The school, which hosted over 430 students in the early 1980s, now has 170 students. There used to be four football clubs; there is now one, and we travel further for our matches. Survival of our towns will require something new, something outside the square—perhaps tourism, a mining venture, a processing opportunity, value-adding to our agricultural product or perhaps a government facility. After 40 years of failed attempts to establish a national radioactive waste management facility, in 2015 the government determined to set upon a new path and called for landholders across Australia to volunteer property for the facility. I immediately thought this was a great opportunity for a small community somewhere in rural Australia.
My electorate of Grey has the world's biggest uranium mine, called Olympic Dam. In 2011, to ensure I had a full understanding of the industry, I spent 10 days in France, Sweden and Finland, looking at their nuclear industry from top to bottom—enrichment, generation, new construction, reprocessing and permanent storage of waste. I visited facilities similar to that which is proposed for Kimba and I knew how highly valued they were in their community for the employment opportunities and the tourism opportunities they offered. Thousands of tourists come and see these well-managed, open, transparent facilities. Believing I could not ask others to do what I was not prepared to do myself—after all, I had a suitable property—I checked with the minister at the time that it would be legal for me to nominate my property and was advised, yes, it would. In April 2015 I wrote to every member of the Kimba district and told them I was intending to nominate my property for the proposed national radioactive waste management facility: 'Come along and tell me what you think. If the meeting doesn't approve, I won't continue.'
About 50 rolled up. I was a little disappointed, but 50 is not a bad crowd. I put the case for over an hour, maybe an hour and a half. Only two or three at the end of that time really expressed any resistance at all, and the rest were supportive. I assume that those in the community who were opposed in principle would have turned up that night. After all, they were all informed the meeting was on. I thought: this community is up for the challenge. So then I, in turn, challenged that meeting by saying: 'If you think it's a good idea that I nominate my property, and if you have property, why don't you nominate yours? That will increase the chances of success.' As it turned out, three tried. Two were successful, and the nation had 28 nominations from across Australia, two from Kimba. Incidentally, the initial advice I was provided with was changed and I was unable to lodge my application. In retrospect, looking back at the turmoils of the last 12 to 18 months and sections of the Constitution, I would've been banned from parliament had it gone ahead. Anyway, there you go; I didn't know that at the time.
So the department undertook desktop surveys and determined that six of these properties across Australia were suitable. Eventually, random based surveys were undertaken in each community. Even though Kimba voted very narrowly in favour of continuing with the process, it was overlooked. A feature of that survey was the number of direct neighbours who were opposed to the nominated sites. Remember: the government always said that we were looking for a community that actually wanted the facility. The only community that progressed to that stage was Hawker. As a result, a group of determined Kimba residents came together and formed the Working for Kimba's Future group. They were convinced that a huge opportunity had passed our town by, and they set about locating land in the district with more amenable neighbours. Two courageous neighbours came forward—the Rayners and the Baldocks—and I commend them for that. They were prepared to nominate their properties, and the committee lobbied to re-enter the process. Minister Frydenberg dispatched departmental officials to gauge whether support existed on the ground and eventually, in February 2017, he accepted the new nominations.
A period of information and interaction began, with top-level scientists, experts in nuclear medicine, radioactive waste management, geologists, a mayor and a local farmer from Champagne in France, where a similar but much larger facility is located. A permanent departmental presence was located in our town to provide information. Eventually a full ballot of the Kimba district area followed, asking people if they wanted to keep exploring the possibility of hosting the national radioactive waste management facility. Fifty-seven point four per cent voted in favour, and the process continued.
In December 2018, just as both the Kimba and Hawker communities were about to go to the final vote on the issue, the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation actioned a case in the Supreme Court of South Australia, alleging that the ballot was racist. It was referred to the Federal Court, which eventually rejected the case. The action had resulted in a 12-month delay, but finally a ballot took place in both communities in late 2019. The Hawker community narrowly rejected the proposal. A strong 61.57 per cent of the Kimba population voted in favour of hosting the facility. Importantly, more than 90 per cent of the eligible voters participated, and that underlines the fact that this community was well engaged and well informed. Separate surveys determined that around 60 per cent of the businesses, 60 per cent of the local submissions and 60 per cent of the neighbours—there's a great confluence there—supported the project. Importantly, at Napandee, the site that was eventually selected—the site that is owned by the Baldocks—100 per cent of the direct neighbours, those that share boundaries with the host property, support the facility. From the start, the government has said, 'We want a community that wants the facility,' and we've found one. In late January this year, Minister Canavan announced that Kimba was to host the facility and it was to be on the Napandee site. It is worth mentioning that the site is a freehold title and, as such, native title rights have been extinguished.
However, sadly for the community that has given five years of its life to make this decision, COVID-19 has intervened and delayed progress yet again. Today will provide some sustenance for the majority of Kimba residents who just want to get on with the job. There is no doubt that the Kimba is the best informed community in Australia on this issue. No other community has the same level of understanding as Kimba. But, after five years, the free advice and criticism from those outside the community continues. From hundreds and thousands of kilometres away, they continue to lecture the community and try to obstruct the process. We've had court challenges and inquiries from Senate committees and joint standing committees, driven by people who, by inference, believe that the people of Kimba are too dumb to get the decision right. Let me make this quite clear: this community is the best informed in Australia. There are those who sit outside Kimba and think that they've made the wrong decision, they don't know what they're talking about, they're only farmers and they're not smart enough to work it out. I can tell you that it offends me. That attitude offends me. This is a decision for the people of Kimba, and they have made it.
On the upside, in the immediate future we look forward to the second $2 million community benefits program. The last one was wonderful and provided support for a wide range of community infrastructure. The application process is now underway in both Kimba and Hawker. For Hawker, this will be the final part of their involvement in this process. This time, with a lot of the smaller jobs done in the community, I am hoping for some bigger projects offering some long-term economic gains for the community, and I'm very confident, having talked to a number of my local residents, that there will be at least a few of those.
Then we look forward to the period of evaluation and planning of the site and the design process. During that time, $8 million will be made available to build capacity in the district and the surrounding communities to maximise the benefits to the local community. There is a $320 million construction phase. Remember, Kimba is a district with a population of just over 1,000 people, so it's a very significant project. Three million dollars will be provided to maximise the outcomes for the local Aboriginal community, and following that will come the construction. It is envisaged that it will take two years. However, I will be working to ensure that, in so much as it does not compromise either the construction or the operation, we elongate that building phase. That way, local business is more likely to be able to gear up and then sustain new capacity over the longer term as we create a base in Kimba for the supply of goods and services to others.
Then comes the best bit: operating the facility. There will be 45 full-time-equivalent jobs in the dedicated workforce, with other jobs generated in the wider community providing services. We have a commitment to a resident workforce—no FIFO. Of the 45 permanent jobs, all but 12 will be able to be recruited from the local community. They will not require specific skills and will be able to be trained on the job.
Additionally, it is envisaged that a number of the projects, including telecommunications, roadworks and community infrastructure, will provide benefits to the wider community. Once operating, the $20 million will be provided for the ongoing benefit of the community. We intend to manage and protect that investment and only distribute the profits, thus ensuring it permanently remains for the community benefit. This investment can then be used to build community infrastructure and, most importantly, help establish new industry and employment opportunities, working to grow Kimba and arrest the population decline I detailed at the beginning of the speech.
The project will be a game changer for Kimba. It will offer a secure future for a bigger and stronger Kimba. We will use it to lever bigger and better things. I'm convinced a hundred other communities around Australia will look at us in the future and ask the questions: 'Why didn't we put our hand up? Why didn't we have a go at this?' The local farm group has pushed to ensure land be made available for them to grow crops in the immediate vicinity, which will provide proof of safety, but with a view of developing links with a scientific capacity to help identify and solve some of our agricultural barriers. We will build links between the school and the facility, opening up a scientific career path for our students. We look forward to the Commonwealth helping to ensure the sustainability of our medical workforce and facilities. I'm proud of my home town, and it has continued to function well through this process, even being named in a Bond University study as the kindest place in the country and the best remote area in which to live in November 2018.
Certainly the five-year process has affected some personal relationships. There have been some tough times. I accept that, and I thank the people for their tolerance and their ability to get on, even though some of these relationships have been strained. But you can't have this type of debate without that. I often say to people, 'If you want to see division, let me take you to a community where there's a proposal to build a wind farm or to put up a new mine or to build a feedlot.' All these kinds of debates too get emotional and strong when people believe passionately in the side of the debate they are taking. We've got through that, and now we are keen to get on with the job. We've held together and we want the hold-ups and delays caused by dissent in this place and others to go away. Let us get on with that job. It's a great frustration to those of us who backed the development that we just can't get on with the job.
In that light, that's why I was disappointed at the shadow minister's comments—that they are waiting for information. As I said, the information has been made available over and over again, but we'll go through this process with the Senate. I fervently hope that the opposition will come on board when we get to the Senate. (Time expired)
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (11:13): It is absolutely strange standing up the back here, I can tell you—it is bizarre! I acknowledge the contribution from the member for Grey. While I understand his frustration, and I understand it only too well, I think it is reasonable for us to finally go through this process in a manner where the issues which others want ventilated are ventilated in the appropriate way: through a Senate committee. That'll happen. It'll come back and, presumably, on the basis of his contribution, there will be recommendations from that committee that the site should proceed. I would say to him that it's okay to be critical, but be objectively critical, and allow the opportunity for others to have a look at the issues as they perceive them as being important.
I also want to acknowledge the contributions of the member for Gorton, the shadow minister; and the member for Macarthur, Dr Freelander. Both acknowledge the importance of having the site. Dr Freelander made it clear he was opposed to a nuclear industry, and I might just put on the record yet again that I share that opposition. I'm an old man, but in the late 1970s, when I was a younger person, I spent a lot of time trying to prevent uranium mining being developed in the Northern Territory. It's all because I was opposed then, as I'm opposed now, to a nuclear industry. But I am also a realist, and I understand that we are now all part of the nuclear fuel cycle and that there are issues that need to be addressed. Nuclear waste is one of the issues to be addressed, and that's what this bill seeks to do.
I want to put this in some sort of historical context. I have in front of me two very similar bills, which were discussed in 2005. They are the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2005 and the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management (Related Amendments) Bill 2005. I'm doing this to contextualise it—even to put it in a way which will potentially support the view that is being put by the member for Grey. There is no-one in this chamber at the moment who was here in 2005, but I can tell you that there was a very live discussion going on over 2004 and 2005 about a nuclear waste facility in Australia to address the sorts of waste concerns that we've seen identified in this piece of legislation. It was a course which came initially from a report which was made to the Commonwealth by a national scientific advisory committee, which went through and examined 22 different sites across the country as being potentially reasonable sites for nuclear waste disposal. Not one of them was in the Northern Territory. The most suitable sites were not in South Australia, either. They were seen as being Seymour, near Puckapunyal, in Victoria; Narrandera in New South Wales; indeed, there was a site near Canberra, Mount Reedy, out near Majura, which was seen as suitable; a site at Deniliquin, which was seen as 'most suitable'; and a site at Denham in New South Wales, which was also 'most suitable'.
Obviously, there were limitations in the areas they were looking at, but clearly the government of the day took the view: 'We're not going to bother going to any of those places. What we will do is look at land which is available to the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory, because it's not a state; therefore, we don't have to play around with it.' They wanted initially to go to Woomera, but you will recall that the then South Australian Premier took the matter to the High Court to prevent it from happening at Woomera, so they needed to look somewhere else. What they did was choose quite arbitrarily three different sites to look at in the Northern Territory. All three of these locations were Department of Defence land, so it was Commonwealth land for the Commonwealth to determine the purpose of its use, with the attraction of its not having issues to do with native title. The sites were Fishers Ridge, 40 kilometres east of RAAF Base Tindal; Harts Range defence land, 200 kilometres north-east of Alice Springs; and Mount Everard, 42 kilometres north-west of Alice Springs. You can imagine the response from the Northern Territory community when the Commonwealth took the position that it would impose one of these sites as a nuclear waste facility on the Northern Territory population without so much as a by-your-leave—no consent given, no consultation taking place. It caused a furore, as you can imagine. Ultimately, the Commonwealth didn't proceed, because of the strength of community opposition, as well it should. When, later, there was a proposal for a site which came from an Aboriginal group north of Tennant Creek at Muckaty, it, too, didn't proceed. But in that particular case there was a group of traditional owners who were prepared to allow the development of a waste repository on their land in return for commitments made by the Commonwealth. That too, of course, was a source of great contention and community division, and, ultimately, as I say, it didn't proceed.
We are now left with this proposal. I have to say, given the approach that has been taken, it has a lot more merit than any of the others because, whatever we might think of the community consultation process, there was community consultation. Whether we think it was a relevant level of community consultation is quite another thing, but, as the member for Grey has strongly put, there was a process which had the support of the majority of the residents of the Kimba local government area.
That's apparently not a position which is supported by all. While there is no native title over the land, because it was freehold title, there will be people with an interest in that land who would see themselves, had it not been freehold land, as having native title interests or traditional owner interests, and there is merit to asking what those people actually want. I know that the relevant Aboriginal native title organisation in South Australia, the Barngarla people, took an appeal to the Federal Court and lost, but they still expressed the view that they should have been consulted and that, even though they reside outside of the Kimba area, they should have been involved and had their views represented in this ballot which took place. That's an ongoing issue, and there are clearly issues around people who reside in the region but at Port Pirie, Port Augusta and Whyalla, who have interests in that community and want those interests properly ventilated. And that is what this Senate inquiry will have the capacity to do.
That's why I think it's important—given the history of this, over decades now—that we actually work with communities. I can see some merit in the proposals which have been put, but, nevertheless, there are valid concerns, which are expressed in the opposition's amendment but which I might just go to, for the sake of the member for Grey and those in the government who would be concerned about the fact that we want to proceed to have a Senate inquiry.
We, here in Labor, reaffirm our need to determine a site for the storage of radioactive waste. That is understood. I don't think there can be any reasonable person in this country who could argue that we don't need a waste facility. I think the questions arise around the nature of it—indeed, I think they arise in part because of the nature of the waste requirements. Bear in mind that this is 2005 I'm now going to talk about. At that time, the Commonwealth had approximately 3,600 cubic metres of low-level waste, a high proportion of which was at Woomera, and produced about 30 cubic metres of low-level waste per year. The Commonwealth had, at that time, 400 cubic metres of intermediate-level waste in Australia and generated less than five cubic metres a year. The intermediate-level waste generated from spent fuel out of the reactors had been sent to France where, at that time, there were 6½ cubic metres, and the United Kingdom, where there were 26½ cubic metres. As to the nature of the waste being determined then, it was from the new reactor, which the member for Macarthur referred to, the old High Flux Australian Reactor, which was, at that point, still operational, which had waste to be returned from France; Defence waste, held at various sites across Australia, including contaminated soil from the Woomera site—and of course we all remember Maralinga, and we'll have seen recently the publicity around an ABC program around it, and we all know what happened there—and the CSIRO's accelerator waste and other Commonwealth waste, including, of course, all the medical waste that has been referred to by the member for Macarthur. At the time, we were told this thing had to be done and dusted within a very short space of time. Then, in 2011, when we had a similar discussion, we were told that this all had to be settled by 2015, when the nuclear fuel rods were due to come back from France and the United Kingdom. I'm not certain what has happened to those rods but what we do know is that we have got, as was expressed by the member for Gorton and the member for Macarthur, effectively, a waste facility at ANSTO's site in Sydney, which needs to be fixed. We need to find another site for that nuclear waste. What is being proposed here is a site in South Australia.
I don't think we should walk away from the fact that there are people with significant interests who may not be directly living in Kimba or in the area of this consultation. We do need to accept that there are people with legitimate views and interests, and those views and interests should be ventilated in the course of the discussion and debate about this issue. That's what this inquiry proposed by a Senate committee will do.
We know there have been concerns raised by interested parties, including, as I mentioned earlier, by the traditional owners. It is legitimate, I think, for us to look at the costs, the funding arrangements and employment levels associated with the facility. It is legitimate to look at the potential impacts on affected communities, the adequacy of the community investment fund and related compensation.
As the member for Macarthur said, this stuff will be put away for a very long time—not 10 years, not 20 years, not 50 years but hundreds of years. We need to be aware of our obligations in ensuring the security of any repository. I know this has been referred to as a temporary facility. Old Parliament House was a temporary facility; it lasted until 1988. I don't think we should regard this as a temporary facility. If this is temporary, what is stage 2 and where will it be at? We should know that. If they've got views about what a long-term facility would look like, where will it be? What will it encapsulate and when will it happen? I would think what they're planning for here is a contingency where this site won't be for the short term or the medium term but will be for the long term, and we need to be aware of all the implications of those decisions. That's why it is important, in my view, that we support the amendment moved by the opposition and support the prospect of a Senate inquiry. And until that Senate inquiry reports, we should not be voting on this legislation. Sadly, the government has chosen, despite advice from the opposition, to debate this legislation today and effectively have us vote against it because we're not prepared to support this legislation prior to that inquiry deliberating and making its findings public.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (11:28): Before I pass my comments on this important bill, I would like to acknowledge the work and contribution over many years, in fact, over a decade, of the member for Grey. I note his contribution today and also the contributions of the member for Fairfax, the member for Macarthur and the member for Lingiari. I must say this has been an issue that has not just popped up; it's been running almost for 40 years, about a new and long-term intermediate- and low-level nuclear waste facility.
Before I entered parliament, I did practice for 33 years as a medical practitioner in general medicine, inside hospitals, in community medicine, consulting and in gastroenterology. During that time, I and just about every other doctor practising in Australia and in the modern western health system have been engaging with nuclear medicine facilities. We have 100 facilities around the country that accumulate low-level and intermediate waste. Currently, the vast majority of it is stored at the ANSTO site at Lucas Heights.
I would just like to demystify, for members of the public who are listening to this: intermediate- and low-level waste is not what it is popularly understood to be. It is actually the gloves, needles and syringes that are used in nuclear medicine facilities. It is all the leftover radiopharmaceuticals that are used in drugs and therapeutic and diagnostic tests—the accessories to PET scans and SPECT-CTs. If you've ever had health issues assessed by diagnostic tests, odds on—in your lifetime, there's a 50 per cent chance you will—you'll be the beneficiary of nuclear medicine, whether it's I-131 scans diagnosing thyroid disease or therapeutic doses of radioactive iodine to kill any cancers in your thyroid; bone scans, looking for infections and tumours—PET scans and SPECT-CTs diagnosing the extent; gallium scans, testing for lymphoproliferative disorders or lymphomas; liver cancers; infections; bone disease; bone cancers; thyroid disease; or cardiac tests for testing the ejection fractions that your heart can put out. All these issues rely on nuclear isotopes. In Australia, virtually all of them are manufactured at the ANSTO site at Lucas Heights. Yes, in downtown suburbia, in the middle, surrounded by about two million people, there is a nuclear facility that has happily been operating there since the 1950s. We have operated two nuclear reactors, but they're research reactors, generating isotopes for this very issue.
Around the world, we export these isotopes for use in other countries. When it's up and running fully—which it is now; it has pretty much ramped back up to full capacity, apart from the COVID implications of trading—we supply at full throttle about 27 per cent of the medical isotopes that are used around the Asia-Pacific and the world. That's an unknown and unappreciated fact: that we do have very high nuclear capabilities and we've been helping in nuclear medicine, not just for Australians but for many people.
I have toured the waste facility there on two occasions now. Most of it is sitting in 40-gallon drums, and the compressed gloves, needles and protective gowns that the nurses and the doctors use in nuclear medicine facilities are all squashed into these 40-gallon drums. The intermediate-level waste that has been reprocessed in France is back on that site in a separate big building, in a dry canister storage facility. I've been right up next to it. I've hugged it. I've had a photo taken in front of it just to demystify it for people who, when they hear 'radiation', think there's this red-hot, glowing isotope beaming out towards you. But that is not the case.
We've heard the member for Macarthur say that he doesn't have any problems with nuclear medicine. Well, if we want to grow nuclear medicine and look after our own waste, we will need a new facility. The place at Lucas Heights is just about full. That's why this National Radioactive Waste Management Facility near Kimba will solve the problem that has been floating around parliaments and administrations of various governments for 40 years.
Kimba, as the member for Grey outlined, is currently probably the most informed community in the country, outside the scientific community, about what is involved in a waste facility. Since 2015, there have been nominations voluntarily supplied for sites that have been analysed for suitability, and the decision has been made to go for the Napandee site near Kimba. But, before that, there was a huge education program for the people of Kimba. They've had a vote, supervised by the Australian Electoral Commission and local government, on whether it should be placed there. That went ahead, with 60 per cent in favour to 40 per cent. If you look at the site, it really is a long way from anywhere. To put it into perspective, the current low-level waste facility is in the middle of suburbia, so establishing a facility at this site is not going to harm anyone, but we have to comply with standards. We will continue to supply up to a quarter of the world's needs for isotopes in medicine, so we have to have an expanded site.
There have been tours of people from Kimba to the ANSTO site. There have been information sessions, workshops, newsletters, fact sheets, independent reports, and direct consultation with neighbours, business and traditional owners, including surveys. Between August 2018 and December 2019, there was a public submissions process for people within and outside the communities to express their views. As I said, it was completed with a community ballot run by the Australian Electoral Commission. I think it was probably the most extensive consultation process in my experience.
This bill does give certainty to that wonderful community. They know they're going to be totally safe. They know they're going to get extra jobs and economic activity. There's also going to be a $20 million community fund established to help the cultural, economic and social life of that region. The bill creates a community consultative committee, and it allows the minister to specify the practical nuts and bolts issues about building a site.
Comments have been made about native title. There is no native title engaged in this site, because that has been looked at both in this House and in other inquiries. It is broadly accepted that we need this site. I am perplexed by the last-minute queries and unfounded concerns that some previous speakers have brought to bear, because they don't match with the facts. We've recently heard comments outside this House about international waste. The bill specifically prevents this site from being used for international nuclear waste, apart from the ANSTO-derived reprocessed material that is currently residing in Lucas Heights. As I mentioned, this doesn't extinguish any native title rights. There are no native title rights engaged. A lot of the amendments in this legislation are being made because it was originally thought that the site would be in one of the other states, particularly the Northern Territory. The amendments are being made because that decision is no longer relevant.
I fully support this bill. As I said, nuclear medicine is something that one in two of us will depend on. It allows diseases to be diagnosed, treated, ameliorated and, in some cases, cured without the need for extensive surgery. We want this amazing industry that Australian technologists in ANSTO have developed to flourish and help our near neighbours so that these isotopes for medical use can be applied. It's a great project. I would again like to pay tribute to the member for Grey for his untiring support for this very worthy project and for his patience. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (11:39): I'm glad for the opportunity to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020, which I oppose, and to support the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister for industry and science, the member for Gorton.
There is no question that Australia needs to make progress when it comes to the proper long-term storage of nuclear waste. It is just that this bill doesn't help take us towards that end. It's taken us 40 years and it's cost $55 million to get us to this point. There's no question that we benefit significantly from nuclear medicine, from the use of radiopharmaceuticals, especially as a diagnostic tool. We benefit here in Australia and we provide those benefits to other parts of the world. We have the nuclear facility, the OPAL reactor, that's operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, at Lucas Heights. It creates the relevant material for nuclear medicine and it creates the need to carefully and safely deal with the waste. It's not an easy task to do that, but this bill doesn't help.
Effectively this bill seeks to rush and force the issue of community acceptance, which is a mistake. The minister has the power to make the decision in question. You can only guess that the reason for this legislation is to lock in an outcome, when the minister and the government accept that there are some concerns with the community acceptance process that has occurred so far. The bill effectively also wants to ignore, avoid and further neglect the key issue of a permanent disposal site for intermediate-level waste. There are two kinds of waste that this bill proposes to send to a site in South Australia—low-level waste and intermediate-level waste—and they are very different. A lot of what has been said, including what the minister said in introducing this bill, glides over that difference in a way that is wrong and is certainly not helpful in terms of getting to where we need to get to with a permanent disposal site for low-level waste and a permanent site for intermediate-level waste.
If we know anything about nuclear technology, we know that it relies upon toxic radioactive material and it generates toxic radioactive waste. That's why there are serious engineering challenges in relation to waste and that's why there are quite legitimately very serious issues in relation to social licence around nuclear technology. People are wary of it, especially of nuclear waste, and they should be. We have to get towards a long-term disposal solution, and yet this bill raises two serious questions about how the government wants to take us there. There's concern over the site selection process, which goes to the question of consultation, engagement and community agreement, and there are concerns about the purpose and function of the facility. I want to talk mostly about the latter, but, in relation to the former, in relation to community decision-making, I support the fundamental proposition that the people of South Australia, or any state or territory where a waste disposal site is proposed, should decide, and the agreement about a site should be a meaningful agreement without the serious question marks that remain in this case. Really, for the government to take us to that end, it would do better to work on achieving that meaningful agreement rather than steamrolling over the top in the way that this bill seeks to do.
The second issue is the fact that this site is proposed to be a permanent disposal site for low-level waste and a temporary storage site for intermediate-level waste. To the extent that it proposes that it's going to be a temporary storage site, it really stretches the ordinary concept of the word 'temporary'. The problems with that are really quite considerable. There is a very serious risk, and no-one in this place should be ignorant of the possibility, that intermediate-level waste will go to this site and it will be there forever, effectively. I'm sure that moving it from its current location will mean that the long-neglected task of preparing for a permanent disposal site will only be further delayed and ignored.
As other speakers have mentioned, low-level waste is mostly personal protective equipment and it contains limited amounts of long-lived radioactive substances. It needs to be stored for a few hundred years in what are described as near-surface facilities. At the moment, it's stored in 200-litre drums in a big shed at Lucas Heights, and presumably it would be not dissimilarly stored at a site in South Australia if that's where it went. Intermediate-level waste is something quite different. Intermediate-level waste comes from spent and reprocessed nuclear fuel and the residue from parts of the radioisotope production process. It does not decay in a way that makes it acceptable for near-surface-level disposal. You get a sense of the toxicity of intermediate-level waste when you consider the time frame that's involved. The proposal here for the permanent disposal of low-level waste is for it to be stored and for the facility to be actively operated for a period of 100 years and then 'institutionally monitored'—that is the phrase in the explanatory memorandum—for a further period of 200 years. Intermediate-level waste, by contrast, needs to be stored for thousands of years. It remains toxic for thousands and thousands of years. It needs to be buried deep in the ground.
I also make the point that there is no permanent disposal site for high-level waste anywhere in the world. At the time when members of the government are going around spruiking the take-up of nuclear power in Australia—in defiance of all logic, in defiance of the international trends away from nuclear and in defiance of the economic evidence and the energy needs of this country—let's remember that this is a 70-year-old industry. It's been around for 70 years, and the industry still is incapable of dealing with its most toxic waste.
In relation to this site, I want to make a few points about how we've got here. It has taken 40 years and, as I said, cost $55 million to get to the point of nearly selecting a site. Departmental officials came before the energy and environment committee when we were inquiring into nuclear energy, and they gave us some very rough estimates of what the construction of the site itself would cost. That will be somewhere around $340 million to $350 million. That's for the construction of the site, and that was described to us as a conservative estimate. Bizarrely, there is no current process underway with even a single dollar of government resources going towards the issue of a permanent disposal site for intermediate-level waste. It's quite strange. It's almost hard to believe that, when it's taken us 40 years to get to the brink of a permanent site for low-level waste, there is not yet any departmental group or any taskforce on this and there's not a single dollar going to the process of site selection, engineering design or anything else around the question of a permanent disposal site. We actually have an answer on notice from the then Department of Industry, Innovation and Science on that issue:
A government decision on the entity responsible for the waste management technical coordination function—
in relation to intermediate-level waste—
has yet to be determined and is required before an Intermediate Level Waste disposal project timeline and budget can be determined.
So, while we've taken 40 years and $55 million to get to the brink of a permanent low-level waste disposal site, no process is advancing by a single hour, let alone a day or a year, towards what the department itself said will likely be another 30- or 40-year process.
So this bill says, 'Let's send intermediate-level waste to South Australia for temporary storage.' What does 'temporary storage' mean to the average person? Do you think it means 30, 40, or 50 years or forever? I doubt that very much. But that is, in effect, what this bill seeks to do with intermediate-level waste, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
The government, in the material, suggests there are reasons for the waste being moved, and a lot of the members from the government have said that they're running out of space at Lucas Heights. That might be true for low-level waste. It is not true for intermediate-level waste. Like the previous speaker, I've been into the enormous shed. It's bigger than the chamber in which I stand—well, it's about the same size as the chamber in which I stand—and there's a canister of intermediate-level waste. There's one of them. There's another one due back before long. There is plenty of room in that interim storage facility, so there's no issue with space as far as intermediate-level waste is concerned, and there's no issue in relation to safety or health concerns either. That is really important. If anyone is suggesting that there are health and safety reasons for moving intermediate-level waste to South Australia, they should point to the evidence of that, and then they should answer the question of how it came to be there in the first place, because we started receiving intermediate-level waste, the reprocessed fuel rods, back in 2015. There was a proper process, supervised by ARPANSA, that saw that waste come and be stored at Lucas Heights, and there's never been any suggestion whatsoever that there is a safety or health concern about the location of intermediate-level waste at that site. If the government are in possession of any evidence to that effect, they should share it with the public. The member who spoke previously said that he walked up and gave the canister a hug. I was there and I found that quite strange to observe. But where is the evidence that there is any problem with the intermediate-level waste staying where it is, as it should do, until the government of Australia identifies and resources an appropriate permanent disposal site for intermediate-level waste?
When the interim facility was set up, there was no suggestion it was only for a few years. The licence that exists for the storage of the intermediate-level waste at Lucas Heights runs to 2055. ARPANSA itself addressed this issue in the submission that it made to the Senate inquiry. I want to quote from it, because this is important:
ARPANSA is aware that some stakeholders have interpreted ARPANSA's decisions regarding the IWS—
which is the intermediate-level storage—
as a requirement for relocation of the waste stored in the IWS, even suggesting that there is an urgent need for relocation. This is not correct. ARPANSA has not raised safety concerns regarding storage of waste at the IWS. ANSTO seems to share this view. ANSTO has indicated to ARPANSA that the mandatory recertification of the TN-81 casks every 10 years can be carried out at the IWS …
But the claims that the government and government members in this place have made that intermediate-level storage needs to go to South Australia because there's no room for it and that there are health and safety concerns about where it is currently are rubbish. And so it should stay where it is as a spur to the government to get on with the process, which currently hasn't even started, of finding and resourcing a permanent disposal site. That is not occurring, and that's one of the chief flaws of this bill.
The government is going about this important task the wrong way. Labor support a permanent national radioactive waste facility. We know it needs to be created. We just think the government should do it in the right way. They shouldn't steamroll over the issue of community acceptance and community engagement, and they don't need to. If they do that, they are going to put social licence at risk, and that will be even worse if they move intermediate-level waste to South Australia. They need to immediately start and resource the process of a permanent disposal site for intermediate-level waste. They should commit to maintaining that waste where it is currently stored, which is another reason for an inquiry on this issue.
More broadly, the government need to recognise that the social licence for nuclear technology is fragile at best. And that's for good reason. We have our own chequered history in this country. We allowed the British to detonate 10 nuclear bombs in this country, all of which were as big or bigger than the bombs dropped on Japan. That didn't go through a parliamentary process. What's worse, we allowed the British government to explode nuclear material just to see what would happen if an aeroplane carrying nuclear material was shot out of the sky. That meant that radioactive material was strewn over South Australia, the clean-up efforts for which didn't conclude until the early part of this century, and cost millions and millions of dollars, which the British government only very reluctantly contributed to. We know there are problems with uranium mining. We've watched events like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yet there are members of the government running around saying that nuclear power should be part of our energy mix in our communities across Australia. Frankly, that is not only deeply irrational but ridiculous and unhelpful in the task this bill presents to us.
This bill is not a sensible or appropriate way in which to move towards the waste storage solution. It puts the program at risk. That's why we don't support the bill.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (11:54): I acknowledge the traditional custodians of the land on which I currently stand, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, as well as the Barngarla people of South Australia, and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging.
The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 gives effect to the establishment of a national radioactive waste management facility to permanently dispose of low-level radioactive waste and temporarily store intermediate-level radioactive waste. This raises concerns in respect to the temporary storage of intermediate-level radioactive waste. There is no established case or current extenuating circumstance for this temporary relocation of intermediate-level radioactive waste. I do have concerns that the passage of this bill will be used to argue a case for storage of high-level waste in circumstances where there are issues of support by the community.
The bill specifies the site on which the facility will be established and operated—the Napandee site, located in the District Council of Kimba in South Australia. The facility will allow for a single repository of Australia's nuclear medicine and research waste at this time, which has been sited over diverse geographic areas over many years. Currently, that is an issue. Nuclear medicine is particularly important to the Australian people. Many will need it in their lifetime for screening and for various diseases and ailments.
The bill also establishes a community fund of $30 million to support the local economy, which will be overseen by a local community board for distribution to viable projects. The establishment of the facility and the community fund will provide ongoing economic benefits and employment opportunities for the local community; I am very cognisant of that.
The bill comes at the end of a significant consultation effort made by the minister and the department over many years, and I do commend them for that. However, there is still a level of uncertainty and grave concern, as far as I'm concerned. As with anything nuclear, the siting of the facility has caused significant division within the local community and debate over Indigenous rights more broadly.
Article 29 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples explicitly requires:
States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.
The standard of free, prior and informed consent is identified as part of Australia's binding human rights obligations under articles 2 and 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
The land on which the facility is sited covers the native title area of the Barngarla people. The statement of compatibility on human rights states:
Native Title rights have been extinguished at the specified site; however, Aboriginal heritage, either tangible or intangible, may still be present.
Whilst the department has made admirable efforts to consult with the Barngarla people—consistent with the components of free, prior and informed consent—the facility still does not have their consent. The Barngarla people nominated the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation as their registered native title body corporate to speak on heritage matters. Of its members who were eligible to vote in the ballot, 100 per cent voted no on the question, 'Do you support the proposed national radioactive waste management facility being located at one of the nominated sites in the community of Kimba?'
Further, in a submission made to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics on 26 March 2020, the Barngarla people reaffirmed their opposition and raised additional concerns as to the consultation provided by the government and to legislative provisions set out that could limit their democratic rights. So there is clearly still an issue. I also note that there exists a level of ambiguity over the protection of native title in the broader site area.
In the circumstances, we are at a loss to understand why the government cannot place the facility somewhere where these issues are not in question, like the Woomera prohibited zone. I have received representations from several groups, including the Sisters of St Joseph and the Australian Conservation Foundation, raising their concerns about potential environmental and human rights implications of the bill, and that has also factored into my consideration of this bill.
It's curious that the government has decided to debate this bill now, as it comes at a crucial point in our history. The death of George Floyd, and the resulting protests, in the United States has highlighted entrenched racial bias and inequality and has created shock waves in countries around the world with their own troubled histories. Australia is not immune. We rectify our history by listening and enabling Indigenous Australians to chart their own destiny. That's why I support constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, and I strongly urge the government to hold a referendum on this issue and legislate an Indigenous voice to parliament, consistent with the Uluru Statement from the Heart, as soon as possible.
The Uluru statement ends with an invitation: 'We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.' The sentiment is so selfless and empowering—to be invited to share in a history and culture that reach back 65,000 years. This is a moral choice for all Australians to make. What kind of Australia do we want to be? The recent blasting of the 46,000-year-old Juukan caves by Rio Tinto and the reports of further consideration of destruction of Indigenous sites by other mining companies demonstrate that we need the voice now more than ever and that we're far from the that ideal as set out in the Uluru statement.
That brings us back to this issue. I'm sympathetic to the economic benefits for the Kimba district and the general need for opportunities for the local non-Indigenous community that this bill will create. However, the facility clearly comes at the objection of the Barngarla people. It also undermines the spirit of the bipartisan commitment this government has to pursuing the goals set out in the Closing the Gap reports and the spirit of the Uluru statement. Considering this, I again repeat my request that Minister Wyatt devise the question and publicly commit to a referendum on a voice to parliament without delay and that the referendum be put to the Australian people during 2021. It's also clear from recent events that the Prime Minister should urgently convene a national cabinet to discuss Black Lives Matter, inviting experts from the Indigenous community to agree to a national plan of action to address Indigenous deaths in custody and incarceration rates. This all forms part of how we do all walk together for a better future.
So, in considering this nuclear waste facility, put yourself in the shoes of the local Indigenous people. They've been ignored for generations. Imagine their sense of hopelessness, despair and despondency as they are continually overruled. Consistent with the voice and the sentiment expressed in the Uluru statement, I will not support this bill. The turning point for our regard for Indigenous Australians is now and starts with rejecting this bill.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (12:03): I rise to speak on the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020. As I was sitting in my office listening to some of the contributions made by the government members on this bill, my ears pricked up a little bit, because some of the contributions were extraordinary. The minister for energy has joined us in the chamber, and he does have a very difficult job placating some of the pretty extraordinary views in his backbench. We'll start with the member for Fairfax.
The member for Fairfax, who chaired the committee inquiry into nuclear energy, stood here and said that there haven't been any incidents at ANSTO in Lucas Heights, where the medical nuclear technology is manufactured. Of course, we know that last year there were a number of incidents where people were exposed to radioactive material. Thankfully those incidents didn't result in serious health concerns for people, but there were a number of very serious exposures. There was also a period of time where ANSTO had to cease production of medical nuclear technology until ARPANSA was satisfied with the safety practices. But that wasn't quite as extraordinary as the member for Grey, who in his contribution admitted he was going to offer his own property as a site for a nuclear waste deposit area—until he was advised he would be disqualified from sitting in the parliament if he were to do so. So he then quite wisely decided to withdraw the offer of opening up his backyard as a nuclear waste site.
But that was almost beaten by the member for Lyne, who pronounced that he had given intermediate waste a hug at Lucas Heights. At Lucas Heights there is a massive structure that looks like a big can of Coke; it is 11 feet high or maybe taller. Of all the things I thought about when I walked up to that big structure containing intermediate-level nuclear waste, giving it a hug wasn't in my top 10. Nonetheless, the member for Lyne decided he was going to give it a hug, and we continued on with our tour. On that note, I recognise that ANSTO has some very capable scientists and people working there who do fantastic work. They produce nuclear medical technology that is absolutely necessary. Like many people in this House, I can say that members of my family have benefited from having tests and other treatments that use nuclear technology and require the material that is created at the Lucas Heights facility. Ultimately, that is something we don't have a choice on. We need to continue to produce this material and we need to continue the activities at Lucas Heights.
While there are no other options for medicine, there absolutely are other options for other sorts of nuclear technology and energy. We do not need nuclear technology for energy. The OPAL reactor at Lucas heights is a fascinating piece of equipment. It is an open-water reactor. You can literally peer over the top and see the reactor underneath you. It is quite extraordinary. I was very privileged to go and have a look at it. Obviously, if we were talking about scaling up the activity in order to be able to produce nuclear energy, we wouldn't be having an open-water reactor; we would be having either a large-scale nuclear reactor or, if you listen to members from the government, small modular reactors—even though they don't exist. But, in the future, you would need to have a different form of reactor, a large-scale reactor, which would not be an open-water reactor; it would be closed off and you wouldn't be able to see it because of the much higher level and volume of uranium required in order to create enough heat to produce energy.
The reactor is very much scaled-down, but if we were to go down the road of nuclear energy, we would be required to use a very different piece of technology that would be producing a far greater quantity of waste. As the member for Fremantle rightly pointed out in his contribution, we have been in this process for decades, and it has cost us tens of millions of dollars, yet we still don't have a site because it is a very difficult task to place materials that will have to be left alone for literally thousands of years. While we do have a number of sites across the country where low-level waste is stored, intermediate-level waste is currently only stored at Lucas Heights. Many government members want to increase our nuclear capacity towards nuclear energy. If we were to do that, the amount of storage that would have to be found for intermediate- and high-level waste would have to increase dramatically. And yet, after four decades, we are only now coming to the pointy end of a process to find storage places for intermediate-level waste. It shows the complications, it shows the sensitivities and it shows the range of voices that we need to be looking at and bringing with us in this discussion.
I think it is worth mentioning the events leading up to this, where First Nations people did have a say. Not one First Nations person who had a vote in the Kimba process voted for this nuclear site. While I acknowledge that the Kimba region may have a range of economic challenges that the government should be looking at—and the government should be looking at investing in that region, along with many other regions around the country—simply looking at this as the only option is also not true.
Any site that we decide on, any site with this intermediate-level nuclear waste, would have to be left alone for literally thousands of years. So it is only right that we get this right, that we take the time to make sure that people and communities are brought with us, because any product that we leave in one place will have to be left there for thousands of years. It begs the question: if this has to be done right and if this product has to be left for thousands of years, why can't the government simply wait until the Senate inquiry has done its job in order to come back and present this bill to this House? Why are the government forcing this bill through the House, showing an attitude of not bringing people with them but, rather, neglecting people along this process for something that literally has consequences for thousands of years?
While the member for Grey might be happy to have all of the economic benefits of having a nuclear waste site on his private property, it doesn't make it an easy or right decision. Therefore, as quite rightly pointed out by the member for Gorton, we don't support this bill in its current form. We don't support the timing of this bill. In any consideration of the sensitivities of such a decision as where nuclear waste will end up sitting for thousands of years in Australia, surely we can wait a little bit longer and get this right and listen to all of the different considerations that will be undertaken via the Senate committee.
Any site has a cost to the environment, any site has a cost to build the new facility and any site has a cost to the community that it eventually will sit in. Ultimately uranium is something that Australia has in abundance, but the demand for uranium is not dramatically increasing across the world. Nuclear technology is not the preferred technology when it comes to energy generation across the world. While the world is generating far more energy, the amount of nuclear technology is remaining relatively stable. The amount of government subsidies that are required to produce new nuclear technology is immense, and the only countries that are doing it are doing it heavily subsidised by government. This government ultimately need to make a choice: are they going to find a facility and a nuclear waste site for our medical technology that brings along the communities with it or are they going to force it through without listening to the voices who are affected? It is not just about the people living there now; it is the people living there for generations to come. These are momentous decisions and these are difficult decisions, and we need to get this right. That is why the order of this bill is crucial.
I'll finish on once again reiterating my opposition to the large scale up of our nuclear capability towards nuclear energy. While medical technology is crucial—and we have all had family members who have benefited from having nuclear technology available and nuclear medicines available—we do not have an option; we need that technology in order to help treat people. We do have an option when it comes energy. We do have an option to look at cheaper, safer, reliable sources of energy that do not require the massive government expenditure that nuclear energy would require. This debate highlights the very, very difficult task of finding a place to hold nuclear waste. It is something that the nuclear industry has not been able to solve in its 70 years of being in existence. That is a part of the supply chain and the cycle that we have not found an answer for.
In Australia we are not immune. We need to find a safe place to hold our low-level and intermediate-level waste, but we also must move cautiously through this process, because the consequences are here for thousands of years. We also must take this opportunity to reiterate that moving towards nuclear energy capability in this country would be a bad move for our environment and for the Australian people. Most of all, it makes absolutely zero economic sense. We will have a robust, strong defence if the government and the minister try to push it through.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:16): The federal government has no mandate to situate a radioactive waste dump in South Australia. It is illegal, and the government is trying to change the law to make it permissible. People in South Australia have had this fight before. The traditional owners have had this fight before. Just as they have succeeded in the past, they will succeed again, because it is irresponsible of the federal government to disrespect the South Australian people and the traditional owners and impose a nuclear waste dump in the state of South Australia.
The site selection process has been grossly mismanaged and has been extremely stressful for the Kimba community. A waste dump in the middle of the agricultural heartland in Kimba will put at risk South Australia's 'clean, green' reputation and potentially damage the grain export industry as well. Not only has there been appalling consultation with locals but there has been zero consultation outside the immediate region, including the communities on the wider Eyre Peninsula and across SA and, critically, along the extensive potential transport corridors. The government hasn't even bothered to ask people who are going to have trucks of nuclear waste passing by their houses whether they support it. It's no wonder the government doesn't want to ask that, because you know what the answer will be. The government's plan is going to result in shipments of radioactive waste passing through South Australia's regional roads, streets and waters for decades to come. The people of Port Augusta, Whyalla, Port Pirie, Port Lincoln and in every town on the potential transportation routes should be consulted and given an opportunity to have their say.
I mentioned the situation of the Barngarla traditional owners. The traditional owners do not support the imposition of a nuclear waste dump on their lands. This parliament should stand with the traditional owners. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has acknowledged the affront that this bill, the National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020, does to the rights of the traditional owners, and it's up to us to stand up for human rights and to say that the traditional owners of the land should be listened to and respected. This is a fight that many traditional owners in South Australia have had to have before. They shouldn't have had to have it but they did, and they fought hard and they won. You would think the government would listen to the wishes of traditional owners and listen to the wishes of the South Australian people, but no. It is going to ride roughshod over them.
'Why are we doing this?' many will ask. Why is the government wanting to impose a nuclear waste dump in South Australia against the wishes of traditional owners and locals and without asking the people on all the transport routes what they think about it?
The government talks about the waste at Lucas Heights. The vast majority of Australia's intermediate-level waste is currently stored at ANSTO's Lucas Heights facility. This proposal from the government is not to have a permanent new facility; it's to effectively have double handling. We're going to handle it at ANSTO and then handle it again to move it across to this new site. ARPANSA, the federal nuclear regulator, has stated that there is no urgency to move the most problematic intermediate-level waste from its current site at Lucas Heights and has made it clear that there are no safety concerns with the current storage either. This is not something that we need to do. The government says this is about Lucas Heights, but the experts in charge of the management of that site are saying that it is not something we need to do.
Look at international best practice. It is clear that unnecessary transport and handling from an above-ground extended interim storage facility at ANSTO to an above-ground extended interim storage at a less-resourced facility is not consistent with international best practice. Double handling this intermediate-level waste is not credible and lasting management; it's shirking the hard issues and handpassing these to a future uncertain, unspecified process. It's not an evidence based policy, because the experts are not calling for this; it is simply a tired and fragile political promise from a tired and fragile government.
If the experts are not calling for it and if it's contrary to international best practice, contrary to the wishes of the traditional owners and contrary to the wishes of South Australians, why is the government proceeding with it? We know that many in the government want Australia to be the world's nuclear waste dump so they can say: 'We've got a facility and we've been even able to expand it. Bring all your waste here to us and you can dump it here in Australia.' We know many in the government have been arguing for that. We know that many in the government are even arguing for nuclear power in Australia. They've let all of those people off the hook and are out saying that we need to build nuclear power in Australia.
If you have a fuel spill at a wind farm it's called 'a stiff breeze'. If you have one at a nuclear plant, it's called 'Chernobyl'. In Australia we are blessed with the best sun and wind resources, and the fuel is free and safe, so why would you want to start a nuclear power industry here? That is what some are arguing for, either because they're on the take from the nuclear power and fossil fuel advocates or because their long-term goal is to make Australia the nuclear waste dump of the world. They figure that if we can get acceptance of nuclear power and can get this waste dump up then we can start being the world's nuclear waste dump.
South Australia should not be the world's nuclear waste dump. The lands of the Barngarla traditional owners should not become a waste dump. There is no pressing need for this. That is what the experts are telling us very clearly. There is a call for a much better practice and for much higher existing international standards to be applied. We should be able to agree in this place on some basic principles. We should not impose any federal facility on an unwilling community, and that includes Aboriginal traditional owners. We should act consistently with state and territory laws and with leading international industry practice. We should ensure high storage standards at the two secure federal sites that currently exist—at the Lucas Heights facility and at Woomera—where most waste is sited, and we should have an inclusive and robust examination of the full range of future long-term management options. In other words, even if you are one of the people who think Australia should expand its nuclear sector—and I'm not one of them—then this is not the best practice that you would follow. As all of us accept, there is an issue to be dealt with in regard to the management of intermediate-level waste coming out of places like Lucas Heights. This is not the answer to that issue, because the people associated with it are saying that there is no pressing urgency or need for change. They're saying that taking waste from Lucas Heights and handling it and storing it there, and then moving it across state boundaries to another place, where there are no long-term plans, is not best practice, either.
The government has other agenda and motivations here, which we need to understand and have fully fleshed out and aired. In the meantime, what we should absolutely not do is facilitate this government's siting of a nuclear waste dump on the lands of the Barngarla traditional owners, against their will. That means we have to oppose this bill. We must say, 'No, South Australia will not become another unwilling nuclear waste dump.' This bill should be opposed. We should send the clearest possible message to the government that this is the wrong way. Go back—we will not let the government impose a waste dump against the wishes of locals and traditional owners.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): In his contribution the member for Melbourne made a reference to members of the House—the government—who might be either on the take or something else. It would really assist the House if the member could withdraw that statement. It is a reflection and imputation on members of the chamber.
Mr Bandt: I withdraw.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Melbourne. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand as part of the question. I call the member for Makin.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:27): The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 seeks to establish a low-level radioactive waste storage facility at Kimba in South Australia, a site that then will also be used for the temporary storage of intermediate-level radioactive waste. The mention of the words 'radioactive' or 'nuclear' immediately raises community anxiety and confusion, and understandably so. On the one hand it is claimed that low-level radioactive waste, in particular, but also intermediate-level waste, presents very little community risk. For decades, that waste has been stored in close proximity to community facilities. On the other hand, we are told that the waste should be permanently stored in remote facilities away from people and homes. People are therefore getting mixed messages, so it is no wonder that they are confused and even sceptical.
Before I go to my substantive remarks, I want to respond to a comment made by the member for Grey. I respect the member for Grey's close relationship with the community he represents. He said that criticism about this proposal came from people outside of the area. I point out to the member for Grey and to members of the House that criticism also came from the Flinders Local Action Group, the Barngarla people and other Indigenous representatives, the No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA group, the No Dump Alliance, the state member for Giles and, notably, the former member for Grey, Barry Wakelin, and his wife, Tina. All of those people and groups also have a close association with the area in question.
There is general agreement that Australia should have a national radioactive waste facility, and the member for Gorton and others on this side of the House have made that absolutely clear. It is a position I also support. For decades Australia has pursued the idea, but to date a suitable site has not been agreed upon. Currently, Australia's radioactive waste is stored in more than 100 locations across Australia. In answer to a question on notice from me in February this year about this issue, the minister recently responded as follows:
9. The Commonwealth generates and holds the vast majority of Australia's intermediate level radioactive waste. Most of this waste is held by the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) in Lucas Heights, Sydney. ANSTO currently has about 1,211 cubic meters of legacy intermediate level waste in storage and an expected volume of 1,849 cubic meters of future intermediate level waste.
10. The Commonwealth generates and holds the vast majority of Australia's low level radioactive waste, and most of this waste is held by ANSTO in Lucas Heights, Sydney. ANSTO currently has about 2,711 cubic meters of legacy low level waste in storage and an expected volume of 4,685 cubic meters of future low level waste.
It seems that the options here are to either increase capacity at Lucas Heights or establish a new facility elsewhere. However, finding a suitable location is proving to be very difficult, as others have already pointed out, with no community wanting a site in their backyard, including much of the community around Kimba. Despite claims of community support for the Kimba site, earlier this year around 300 local people turned out to a rally in Kimba. For a country town, quite remote, that's a considerable number of people, and they turned out in opposition to the waste facility.
There is also an argument that many people who should have been consulted around the proposed site were not given a say and that the government's claim of over 60 per cent of locals being in support is not a true indication of community views. In particular, the Barngarla people, the traditional owners, claimed they were excluded from a community ballot. Testing community support for the site selected, amongst people in the areas surrounding Kimba, was something that should have included the Barngarla people.
The whole site selection process and the handling of this legislation has been dogged by controversy. For example, there are concerns that the bill seeks to change the objects of the original act by removing an explicit reference to 'Commonwealth waste' in relation to the proposed facility. This opens up the proposed facility for significant future project creep and waste streams—possibly, waste from more places. Secondly, the bill proposes to continue with exemptions from project compliance with both the EPBC Act and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act. These are serious concerns.
The notion of establishing a nuclear waste facility in this region of South Australia has already twice been rejected by South Australians over the past two decades. In 2004 the South Australian government took a federal government proposal to court and blocked the federal government from establishing a nuclear waste facility in South Australia—again, in this part of South Australia. In 2017 a citizens' jury overwhelmingly rejected a high-level nuclear waste storage facility, again in South Australia. That was after extensive and inclusive public consultation.
The consultation process surrounding the Kimba site selection has been widely criticised, albeit that the proposal is for low-level and temporary storage of intermediate-level waste. Labor is calling for this proposal to be referred to the Senate Economics References Committee so that questions about the concerns raised by farmers—that damage to Australia's clean and green image in producing agricultural products will directly affect them. Also, there are concerns about transport, as other speakers have said, in carting radioactive material from one side of the country to the other. There are also concerns that other sites should be reconsidered, and there are real concerns about the risks and long-term benefits to the local region that have been claimed, and they should also be open again to scrutiny. That is what is needed to restore public confidence in the process, to ensure that the process is transparent and to allay any other concerns.
I will now turn to the issue of looking at alternative sites. Once a site is selected, as others have rightly pointed out, it will be a long-term decision that will cover many, many generations to come. Once a site is selected it will be a permanent site—literally forever—and we all know that. So it's important that we get the site right. Whilst I accept that we have already spent many, many years doing that, if there is a better site than this we should be looking at it.
The federal government owns extensive tracts of land across Australia, as do all state governments. There are also extensive existing and disused mining sites that may be suitable for nuclear waste storage. For example, in 2005 the South Australian government commenced discussions with BHP, the owners of Roxby Downs uranium mine, about the possibility of storing waste there. That would seem to me an eminently sensible thing to do. And there may be other alternative places that, again, common sense would suggest are eminently suitable for the storage of waste. I don't know where that discussion led to, or what happened to it, but my point is that there are opportunities to look at other legitimate sites that, I suspect, would have far less community opposition.
There are also numerous Defence sites that may be suitable for a waste facility that would have much less impact on surrounding communities. Woomera already stores about 120 truckloads of low-level waste. The member for Lingiari mentioned earlier today other sites that were looked at in 2005. In my view, and without knowing the details, these are sites that would seem to be suitable or that should at least be reconsidered. And I imagine that these sites would create little or no community opposition.
Why are those sites not being considered, if low-level waste truly presents minimal risk? Why is it that the government is looking for a temporary site for intermediate-level waste, not a permanent site? Why are the two waste streams not considered separately? Why isn't the storage of intermediate-level waste the priority, when it should be? I think there would be widespread agreement that low-level waste is not the real issue here; it is the intermediate-level waste that is of concern to people. If that is the case and if that is what we should be trying to address, why aren't we making that the priority and looking for a site for the intermediate-level waste? Instead, under this proposal, we are simply saying the site will be used for the temporary storage of intermediate-level waste. Where does it go to after that? The truth is that nobody believes it will go anywhere; this site will probably become the permanent storage place for intermediate-level waste. Why is the government not saying: let's split the two streams and just deal with low-level waste? If we did that, perhaps there wouldn't be such opposition to the proposal at Kimba. It might be a way of dealing with that problem, if that is the truth of what this legislation is all about.
This is an important issue. I accept what others have said in terms of the importance of nuclear medicine in this country. We all benefit from nuclear medicine—there is no debate and no disagreement with that—but let's not make that an excuse for choosing the wrong site. We have spent decades looking for the right site. I chaired a committee that looked into the Muckaty Station proposal and I heard extensively from community members about that site, so it is something I've had some experience dealing with. With respect to this site, based on the objections that have been raised by people in the area surrounding Kimba, their concerns are legitimate and ought to be considered properly. A Senate select committee, I hope, would do that. I would hope that at the end of that process—if this is the site we choose, or if there happens to be another site—we get the site selection right. Because if we do, we know it will be there for the long term, and that is exactly what the Labor amendment seeks to do.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (12:40): The National Radioactive Waste Management Amendment (Site Specification, Community Fund and Other Measures) Bill 2020 reflects over 40 years of searching by successive governments to identify a suitable site that will support the safe and secure management of radioactive waste in Australia. The establishment of a national facility will benefit all Australians by supporting nuclear medicine, which is so critical to cancer treatments, and other important nuclear science and technology activity in the national interest, by providing confidence around how and where radioactive waste will be managed in Australia. The bill provides clarity and certainty about the location of this important facility for the local community, for the broader Australian public and for the nuclear industry.
It also establishes mechanisms to support the host community that will be delivering public services and community infrastructure to the facility. While the bill removes the existing site nomination and selection framework in the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, the identification of Napandee in the South Australian Kimba region as the host site was based on the extensive voluntary process set out in the act. The selection of Napandee was the result of detailed site assessments and community sentiment information, which are the products of years of technical studies and community engagement efforts. This included engagement and consultation with the Barngarla people over a number of years. It is not the government's intention to extinguish native title rights or interests in the process of developing the facility. While Napandee is within the Barngarla Native Title Determination Area, native title does not exist within the proposed site at Napandee. The government has proposed amendments to the bill to put beyond doubt that native title rights and interests in the area surrounding the proposed site will not be compulsorily acquired as part of the acquisition of additional land for all-weather road access to the facility.
In addition, the bill provides for the establishment of a $20 million community fund, intended to be managed and controlled by the host community. The bill makes clear that the fund is to be used to support the economic and social sustainability of the host community. The community fund will contribute to sustainable health services, agriculture research and development, enhancements to local critical infrastructure and the further development of the local Indigenous community economy. The details and arrangements of the community fund will be determined in consultation with the host community.
I would like to thank members for their consideration of the bill and the government amendments. I particularly thank speakers for their contributions. Siting a national facility for the management of radioactive waste raises a number of important issues for consideration, and the bill represents an important milestone in this endeavour. So it is encouraging to see members actively engaging with the issues and the process going forward. I would encourage continued participation in the upcoming Senate committee inquiry, which is due to report by 31 July 2020. I also look forward to continuing these important discussions in the Senate in due course.
The SPEAKER: The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The House divided. [12:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:54): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [12:54]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (12:55): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (3) as circulated together.
Leave granted.
Mr PITT: I move:
(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (after line 24), at the end of subsection 19B(1), add:
Note: Any native title rights and interests that exist in relation to the additional land are not affected by this section (see subsection (3)).
(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 7 (line 31), after "than", insert "any native title rights and interests that exist in relation to the land and".
(3) Schedule 1, item 15, page 8 (after line 4), at the end of section 19B, add:
(4) In this section:
native title rights and interests has the same meaning as in the Native Title Act 1993.
I seek to introduce an amendment to the bill to ensure that native title rights and interests cannot be compulsorily acquired under the act. Native title rights and interests have been extinguished at Napandee, which was nominated by its owners as the site for a national radioactive waste management facility. This means that native title has been extinguished at land specified in the bill, including the facility site and additional land that may be required for the facility should the need be identified during facility development. It is also necessary to enable the acquisition of additional land for the purpose of all-weather road access to ensure that the government can meet any regulatory requirements to construct secondary or emergency road access if it is required by the regulator, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, ARPANSA. It is not possible to precisely predetermine the location of additional all-weather road access that may be required by ARPANSA, and there are some areas of land in the Kimba area that are subject to native title rights and interests.
Under the bill as drafted, new section 19B empowers the minister to acquire additional land for all-weather road access to the site by making a notifiable instrument. Under this provision in the existing bill the minister may exclude any rights or interests from being acquired, which may include native title rights and interests. The government does not propose to acquire any native title rights and interests for these purposes. Following feedback from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, it is acknowledged it could be clearer on the face of the legislation that these rights would not be compulsorily acquired. As a result, I am progressing amendments which put beyond doubt that native title rights or interests cannot be acquired or extinguished if additional land is required for the purpose of providing all-weather road access to the facility. It will remain possible for the minister's instrument to specify other rights or interests that are not required to be acquired or extinguished.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (12:58): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020
Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:58): In relation to the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020, I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses concerns over deficiencies in the bill, including:
(1) the lack of certainty that the measure will lower payment times;
(2) the light treatment of supply chain financing; and
(3) the ability for businesses to hide extremely long payment times to small businesses".
Labor welcomes the debate on the Payment Times Reporting Bill and the Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill. We do so because we have long advocated for better practices for payments to small-business suppliers. We welcome this bill as a step in the right direction. From the outset, I emphasise that Labor supports the intent of the bill as a first step in improving the payment practices of larger businesses to their smaller suppliers of goods and services.
As my colleagues and I—and, indeed, our fantastic candidate in Eden-Monaro, Kristy McBain—are all too aware, cash flow and prompt payment terms are critical to small businesses. Prompt payments to small businesses are far more important to cash flow than they are for larger businesses. Unlike larger businesses, which have a variety of ways to increase working capital, including bond markets and equity raisings, small businesses rely far more on payments and bank finance, which often involves high interest fees. Yet increasingly in Australia we see large businesses using small businesses as their piggy banks and to boost their own working capital position. I've been particularly concerned by the coupling of unconscionably long contracted payment times—sometimes 120 days or more—with the practice of supply chain financing, or what has been described as reverse factoring. In these situations, if the small business supplier wants to be paid on time they essentially pay a fee, often to a third party financier. That's a point I'll return to later in this debate.
The treatment of supply chain financing is one of the deficiencies in the government's approach and in this bill. Labor has been saying for some years that it is unacceptable. As my colleague the member for Fenner noted in 2016: 'The reason these large companies are squeezing suppliers is simple: it improves their cash flow and makes them money. Even in the current low-interest-rate environment, there's money to be made from taking your time to pay up. The reason firms can get away with longer payment terms is straightforward: they're big companies.' That was 2016. At the time, data from Dun and Bradstreet showed that, on average, large companies in Australia were almost 20 per cent slower in paying their bills than small companies were. However, during the COVID-19 crisis we've heard some shocking examples of large companies unilaterally telling smaller suppliers that their payment terms are being blown out to 120 days or more from the date of invoicing. Sometimes never wasting a crisis can take some very pernicious forms. In light of the increasing prevalence of these practices, it is troubling that this transparency initiative provides no means to differentiate a firm that pays in 60 days as opposed to a firm that pays in 120 days or more.
I'll briefly cover the details of the bill, which will help to illustrate why this bill is light-touch transparency, unlikely to significantly improve the status quo of self-regulation of payment times by big business. The Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 introduces a new payment-times reporting scheme. It requires approximately 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises, with annual turnovers of $100,000,000 and above, to publicly report biannually on their payment terms and practices for their small-business suppliers. Small businesses will be defined as businesses with less than $10 million in turnover per annum, and a small-business identification tool will be created to assist larger businesses identify their smaller suppliers. Some business entities such as large cooperatives are exempt from reporting, due to constitutional limitations. Charities and not-for-profits are explicitly exempt from the reporting requirements.
The ostensible objective of the scheme is to improve payment outcomes for small businesses by creating transparency around the payment practice of large business entities. The government contends that, by providing access to information on large-business payment performance, small businesses will be able to make a more informed decision about their potential customers. The government also contends that greater transparency on payment practices and performance will create pressure for cultural change to improve payment times. I think it is rather fanciful to suggest that transparency alone will change the culture of payments by larger businesses to smaller businesses.
Payment time reports will include aggregated data on the reporting entity's payment terms and practices and will identify the entity and other relevant information. Reporting entity reports will be published by the regulator on a central public register known as the Payment Times Reports Register. A regulator will be created to oversee the scheme. The regulator will be, as we're advised, a Senior Executive Service role appointed by the Secretary of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources. Consequential amendments will be made to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to enable the Commissioner of Taxation to disclose certain tax information to the Payment Times Reporting Regulator for the purpose of administering the scheme, and the scheme is intended to begin its first biannual reporting period on 1 January next year. Entities that fail to maintain payment records or provide false or misleading information in a report may contravene a civil penalty provision, and penalties can be up to 350 penalty units, which is $73,500, or up to 0.6 per cent of turnover. Reporting entities will be given an 18-month penalty-free transition from the implementation date of the scheme to enable them to familiarise themselves with the scheme and transition effectively.
The payment times reporting scheme is the second of three tranches of measures the government has committed to in order to improve payment times to small businesses from large businesses. The first tranche was to have government pay its small business suppliers within 20 days of invoicing if using standard invoices or within five days if using an approved e-invoicing system. This measure, as I am advised, has been implemented administratively. The third tranche of the payment time measures announced by the Prime Minister in November 2018 was to link government procurement with payment times, with the Prime Minister stating:
Through a new procurement policy we will require those same large businesses seeking to tender for government contracts to match our 20 day payment policy.
It is at this juncture that we should start to put forward reasons why we are somewhat sceptical about the government's soft-touch approach to payment times to small business. Internal documents reported in The Australian newspaper reveal that, as the procurement link policy has not been implemented to date, implementation is likely to take place in late 2021. Furthermore, should the procurement link payment time policy be enacted, it is only for large businesses looking for federal government contracts that it will provide an incentive to pay small businesses within 20 days. Many of the businesses with payment times of 60 days or more are not ones that provide services to government. Therefore, the government's three measures are unlikely to have a significant effect on their behaviour, if any effect. It may well be negligible.
The bill does not mandate maximum payment times to small businesses, nor does it provide for penalties or remedies on invoices that are paid late or with payment times greater than 30 days, although the regulation impact statement clearly argues:
Without Government intervention, payment times from large to small businesses are unlikely to materially improve.
The RIS only considered business-as-usual and the proposed reporting regime approaches, because:
… introducing the payment times reporting scheme was an election commitment of the Government.
As such, the RIS, the regulation impact statement, does not discuss or consider mandated payment times or other mechanisms to incentivise better payment practices.
Small business stakeholders, including COSBOA and the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, have welcomed the reporting framework as a step in the right direction, as we do. As I've said from the outset, this is a bill that is in the right direction, but we do worry about its impact and its ability to really change the nature of the relationship between large and small businesses when it comes to payments. The reason it remains a first step is that, as many stakeholders note, the government's arguments for the reporting scheme involve a belief that small businesses can shop around for large business customers. We think that's fanciful in most circumstances. Such a belief is not reflective of the power imbalance large businesses have over their smaller counterparts, both in terms of size and market power, which is often a problem because of oligopolies and monopolies in the marketplace. So it's not going to be as simple as choosing another partner in business and eschewing one larger business over another. That's really not the case in most sectors of our economy. There are concerns. Frankly, smaller businesses feel intimidated about even suggesting changing the arrangements of payments, so of course they don't speak up and try to exact a fairer arrangement from the larger businesses.
Indeed, stakeholders the opposition consulted universally noted that a substantial degree of detail of the scheme is to be addressed via delegated legislation—that is, ministers' rules—including the reporting treatment of supply chain financing. Again, the more significant areas where the government could go are determined not under this proposed legislation but, indeed, by regulation by the minister. Virtually all stakeholders have expressed concern about the significant amount of detail that has been left to ministers' rules and regulations. Small business stakeholders want legislative certainty on the design of the scheme, emphasising the need to ensure controversial provisions, such as those related to supply chain financing, are legislated. Given the government has dramatically expanded the use of delegated legislation and regulations, including no less than the JobKeeper program, which included a $60 billion error, those concerns seem quite valid.
Small business stakeholders unanimously welcome transparency but note that the framework is unlikely to significantly change the behaviour of most firms. Kate Carnell, the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, said her office supports the Payment Times Reporting Framework 'as one piece of the puzzle, but it won't solve the problem of late payment times on its own'. Further, she stated:
Legislation requiring SMEs to be paid in 30 days is the only way to drive meaningful cultural change in business payment performance across the economy.
That is from the small-business ombudsman, who was appointed by this government to advocate and act on behalf of that constituency, and her words clearly show that she is very sceptical about this bill providing the panacea, providing the answer, to a situation that is increasingly becoming a problem for many, many small businesses across the nation.
Importantly, it's likely this regime will not dampen the abuse of supply chain financing. Supply chain financing has attracted scrutiny from small business stakeholders, including the small-business ombudsman, who issued a critical report on the practice, and the media are also of course very much onto this significant matter. To understand why supply chain financing has attracted such condemnation, I ask those on the government benches: is it fair to ask a small business to pay a $1,000 fee so they can be paid on time? That is what is happening in the marketplace. Of course that is not fair.
The concerns I've heard about reverse factoring led me to write to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission about situations where payment times are extended, even by 120 days or more, and small businesses are offered third-party financiers to pay the invoice on time but incur a fee. The ACCC chair, Rod Sims, confirmed publicly and in correspondence with me that the ACCC was reviewing the arrangements of some large firms using reverse factoring for breaches of the Australian Consumer Law relating to unfair contract terms, misleading or deceptive conduct, and/or unconscionable conduct.
It isn't just Labor raising concerns about supply chain finance solutions. Stakeholders across the board are particularly concerned about the increased prevalence of reverse factoring. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, has launched a review of supply chain financing and said it is 'totally unacceptable' for businesses to use supply chain financing arrangements as a replacement for reasonable payment terms being offered 30 days or less from invoice. In her review of payment terms, times and practices in March this year, third-party financing must not replace reasonable payment terms being offered 30 days or less from invoice and paying to those terms. It is not acceptable for large businesses to use small suppliers to optimise their cash flow. The Australian Accounting Standards Board is already looking into the tiger trap of reverse factoring and will be discussing it further with the International Accounting Standards Board and other relevant regulators.
Supply chain financing has also attracted international regulatory scrutiny for obscuring the true debt positions of firms using it for systemic economic risks. The European collapse of infrastructure firm Carillion, for example, is attributed to the firm's use of supply chain financing. Labor is part of an international chorus of voices concerned about certain supply chain financing arrangements, including ratings agencies and international audit firms. So we are not alone. We're on the side of many, many regulators and others who are concerned about this. It is also telling us who isn't raising their voice. The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, and the small-business minister, Michaelia Cash, like to talk a big game on small business but are conspicuously silent on this issue. We've heard barely a peep about the practice from the government.
The banking royal commission was a lesson on how our economy has become over-financialised. We've seen the problems that arise when middlemen financiers insert themselves into the arrangements of small businesses. It appears the government has not learnt a thing. In November last year, TheGuardian reported that the Prime Minister had a one-hour meeting with leading proponent of reverse factoring Lex Greensill, who pitched the use of reverse factoring in the payment system for public servants. The government is yet to respond to my questions on notice as to whether the Treasury and Finance departments have met supply chain financiers in regard to the government's own payment practices to suppliers. While local and international regulators swim one way, the government swim another.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission confirmed in correspondence to the opposition that it was investigating the use of such arrangements by an unnamed large firm for possible noncompliance with auditing and financial reporting requirements. The definitions of 'supply chain financing' and 'associated reporting requirements' are contained in the minister's rules. The draft rules only require a large entity to report on whether they use supply chain financing—the details of those arrangements and the proportion of invoices paid under such arrangements—and that's all. The only legislative reference to supply chain finance is a passing reference to what the minister may include in their rules. Small businesses have no guarantee that a minister may not simply, on a whim, remove requirements to report on the use of such arrangements, because they're in the regulations.
As I noted earlier, Labor will refer this bill to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for a brief inquiry. Stakeholders and the opposition have a number of concerns that need to be examined. Ironically, this is in part due to the government's lack of transparency on consultation about a transparency regime. Submissions to the payment time discussion papers and the exposure draft of this bill have not been made available. A brief inquiry should be no impediment to this regime being properly debated and ready to go for the intended 1 January 2021 starting date, lest anyone on the government benches seek to misrepresent our position. To be sure, the government announced this in November 2018 and has dragged its heels ever since. Labor supports the intent of the bill as a step in the right direction but has significant concerns over its likely efficacy and shortcomings, which Labor senators will explore in committee.
Some of the matters that should be explored include that the bill does not appear to have a clear target on when the average payment times should ideally fall, should this be a feature of the regime. The payment times reporting scheme is a transparency initiative to support self-regulation. The efficacy of self-regulatory regimes is usually poor to questionable unless backed by a genuine threat of effective regulation. Labor has concerns that a self-regulatory payment regime as proposed will not result in faster average payment times. The Senate committee should explore what genuine incentives need to be considered for large businesses to improve their payment practices collectively. As I noted before, the government's procurement-linked payment times policy does not create any incentive for better payment practices for the many large firms who do not seek government contracts.
Comparable jurisdictions have implemented or are actively considering legislative payment times. New Zealand is consulting on legislating 20-day payment times, with interest charges for payments over 20 days. The small-business ombudsman has explicitly said that a 30-day maximum payment policy is the only way to go.
On the matter of high-level data, the bill does not require the regulator to publish average or median payment times or representative invoice sizes by reporting entities, although the regulator may choose to do so. The committee should explore whether the regulator must be required to release this data publicly. The committee should also explore stakeholder suggestions that the reporting requirements and the definition of 'supply chain financing' in the draft regulations be legislatively enshrined.
On hiding egregiously long payment times, the bill intends to legislate the following brackets for reporting entities to provide information on payments made less than 21 days after the invoice was issued: between 21 and 30 days; between 31 and 60 days; and more than 60 days. However, the concern with the brackets is that many large firms, particularly those using supply chain financing, use contracted payment times of 120 days or more. The top bracket, of 60 or more days, allows egregiously long payment times to be hidden and therefore not disclosed, despite the efforts to make this arrangement more transparent. For these reasons, it is incumbent on the Senate to review this bill's efficacy and shortcomings in a constructive way.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Butler: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:21): I rise to speak on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and the Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. Just last week the Treasurer announced that, as a result of the devastating bushfires, followed soon after by the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia had ended its historic 29-year economic run, and that, regrettably, we are now in a recession. He also warned us that although our GDP only fell 0.3 per cent for the March quarter, there will be more difficult days ahead. Whilst this is of course disappointing news, it's worth comparing Australia's drop in GDP of 0.3 per cent with those of other nations. The average fall across OECD countries was indeed six times that of Australia's.
Let's look at the specifics of some of those other countries: Japan had a fall of just under one per cent; South Korea and the US—just over one per cent; the UK, Canada and Germany—a little over two per cent decline in their GDPs; France and Italy—a little over five per cent each; and China saw an almost 10 per cent decline in their GDP over the March quarter. In a new economic report issued by the OECD today, Australia is forecast to have the third-best recovery of member nations, behind only South Korea and Turkey.
Whilst Australia falling into recession is indeed bad news, when we look at what has happened around the world, just as in our own health situation, things could have been so much worse. But, as the Treasurer has said, economically and health wise we are not out of the woods yet, and it is likely that things are going to get tougher before they get better.
Many Australians under the age of 50 will not have worked through a recession before. Unlike my parents' generation, and theirs before them, those under 50 have not worked in a recession. They have not survived world wars or the Great Depression. I can vividly recall working as an apprentice carpenter during Paul Keating's 'recession that we had to have'.
Mr Drum interjecting—
Mr WALLACE: The member for Nicholls agrees with me on that. He would have been swinging a hammer at the same time I was!
I recall listening to my old boss speaking to us over smoko and lunchtime about how difficult things were going to get, particularly in the building industry. I remember him saying that, in times such as those, cash was king. Well, Peter Mahoney, you were right back then, just as you would be right if you said it now—and I'm sure you are saying it now. Cash flow is indeed king. Without cash flow a business is on life support, if not dead.
I first learned the importance of cash flow from my old boss Peter Mahoney and from when I went on and had my own building business. Later, as a construction law barrister, I represented countless subcontractors who were chasing payment from builders. In my 16 years as a construction lawyer and adjudicator, I saw literally hundreds of cases where subcontractors' and suppliers' payments were being withheld by builders, principals and developers. Sometimes there was a legitimate dispute. There may have been an argument for the lawful withholding of some moneys for rectification costs, for example, or where the parties had agreed on liquidated damages claims, but there were many, many instances where payments were unreasonably, and sometimes capriciously, withheld. Sometimes these payments were withheld because the larger business was simply insolvent.
In 2012, I was appointed by the Queensland government to undertake a review of the security of payment laws in Queensland. That review led to legislative reforms which made the state's building payment system more robust and equitable. Regrettably it has since been amended again, changing many of those reforms that were instigated as a result of my review.
The building industry is a very good example of how important cash flow is to small businesses. I read the Sunshine Coast Daily, and not a day goes by when I don't see an article about a builder going broke. There are many, many builders going broke on the Sunshine Coast and, unfortunately, when they go broke they take subcontractors and suppliers with them. Mick de Brenni is the housing minister in Queensland. This Labor government in Queensland has been in power for five years. When Mick de Brenni became the housing minister around four years ago, he promised the building industry that, with the reforms he would bring in, every subcontractor would be paid in full, on time, every time. That promise has never been satisfied. Mick de Brenni, you should hang your head in shame for making that promise in the first place and, having made that foolish promise, never being able to deliver it.
I have had a long interest in ensuring that businesses—in particular, small businesses—are paid promptly and that larger businesses do not treat them as an unofficial bank, using the small businesses' money to keep the large businesses afloat without the payment of interest. In fact, as part of that review, I can recall speaking with a large builder on the issue of retentions. I had a robust discussion with this builder, who honestly believed the retentions he was withholding from his subcontractors were his money. He earnestly and honestly held the belief that the money he was withholding in retentions from his subcontractors was his money. Such is the cancer, the misinformation and the miscommunication, particularly in the building industry—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Southam, Ms Doreen
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:30): I rise today to pay tribute to a longtime friend, local WA Labor icon and Neighbourhood Watch stalwart, Doreen Southam, who passed away over the weekend. Doreen was around as long I can remember, a faithful member of the Armadale-Kelmscott branch, always going above and beyond, helping out anyone and everyone whenever she could. Many locals and Labor Party branch members have shared with me their memories of Doreen in recent days. Even the former local Liberal divisional president had praise for her. She always had a great story to tell and a camera in her hand. Doreen loved taking photos and would whip out her camera at any opportunity she could, delivering hard copy prints to my office a week or even some months later. I have had some fantastic moments around my office captured by Doreen over the years, including a photo of her TV while an ABC News story of an inquiry hearing was showing and I had appeared on-screen. She dramatically told the story of spotting me and then dashing into the other room to get her camera and just jagging the perfect shot as the story ended. That picture is framed in my office. Doreen's enthusiasm for life motivated everyone around her and her care for others shone through. Doreen always had a smile on her face, both on her lips and in her eyes. She was always the first to volunteer and always stood up for 'her boys'—me and our local state MLA, Dr Tony Buti. She will be missed deeply by all of us in the WA Labor movement. Vale Doreen.
Lawler, Mr Jordy
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:31): I rise today to acknowledge the incredible talent and endless ambition demonstrated by Narrabeen local Jordy Lawler. Mr Lawler is a professional surfer who continues to represent Australia within the competitive surfing industry, or pro circuit. With much success to his name, Mr Lawler embodies the core values of the Narrabeen community: determination, passion and talent. Growing up on the sacred sands of North Narrabeen, Jordy's love for the ocean encouraged him to dive headfirst into the surfing scene. Jordy is no stranger to hard work and persistence. He believes finessing his style and technique is the most important part of being a good surfer. His determination has paid off. His most recent success saw him claim victory in the 2019 Vissla Sydney Surf Pro competition. Jordy surfed some incredible waves in front of the huge crowds at Manly Beach, all while making his community proud.
Many brands have realised Jordy's incredible talents, as he has been sponsored by both local and national surfing companies. These sponsorships have allowed this talented young man to keep his dream alive. It is empowering to see small Northern Beaches businesses support young people like Jordy, encouraging them to exceed their aspirations. I would like to commend Jordy as a young surfer. He makes all the Northern Beaches community tremendously proud. I have no doubt that Jordy will further both his career and his trophy case in 2020.
Findlay, Ms Moira
Mason, Ms Julie
Price, Ms Maureen
Monahan, Ms Marlene
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:33): I rise today to bring to the attention of the House the retirement of four fabulous women in my electorate who have given a lifetime of service to schools education. In 2020, Moira Findlay retired. She had been Iramoo Primary School principal since 1997 and was named in Monday's Queen's Birthday Honours for her service. Julie Mason, the principal of Baden Powell College—retiring in 2020—was first the principal, and the founding principal, at Glen Orden. She was awarded an OAM on Australia Day, in 2020. Maureen Price from Mossfiel Primary School has served for over 50 years as a teacher and principal in local schools and has been the principal of Mossfiel Primary School for 22 years. At the Recognition of Service Awards in Victoria in 2018, she was recognised for 50 years of service. Finally, I acknowledge Marlene Monahan, the principal of Bethany Catholic Primary School. Marlene was also the founding principal of St James The Apostle, in Lalor electorate. She has served for 37 years as an educator and leader in local schools and was awarded an OAM in 2009. These four fabulous women—fabulous educators, ground-breaking leaders in education—all served my wonderful electorate and my wonderful community. Personally, they are my former colleagues as a principal; they were mentors. I have watched their leadership, and it helped me grow as a teacher.
Grey Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:35): I rise to welcome the announcement from GFG Alliance and Sanjeev Gupta of an investment timeline for the Whyalla Steelworks. Just yesterday, he announced that work on their solar farm will begin—I think it's the biggest solar farm in the Southern Hemisphere, as it so happens—within the next month or two. That's very welcome news. They've laid out the path towards green steel—new technology in Whyalla, which will make it the centre of attention around the world. His first intention is to build a direct reduction iron plant: when you feed magnetite pellets into the blast furnace it has a great reduction in CO2 emissions. It will build an arc furnace and a new rolling mill. All those things will come together and, as I said, give that initial reduction in CO2 emissions. Following that, the hope is in the future to be able to use the electricity from the solar farm, further bringing down the footprint, and then convert the plant from gas to hydrogen generated from the solar plan, thus getting to the equation of green steel.
But of even more importance was his commitment to the Whyalla workforce that he sees no reason to put any worker off and that they are there for the long haul. It's a real pick-up in the Whyalla community at the moment. I thank them for that announcement.
Cybersecurity
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:36): The Commonwealth government's 2016 cybersecurity strategy reached the end of its life more than seven weeks ago. The Minister for Home affairs, Mr Dutton, has been working on a new strategy for 10 months now. In that time a Department of Defence review expressed concerns about Australia's preparedness for cyberwar; the head of ASIO has warned that the COVID-19 pandemic has made Australia less safe as spies and cybercrooks exploit fear online; and ransomware attacks on major Australian companies from international criminal syndicates have become an all too common occurrence. In the last month alone we've seen successful ransomware attacks on Toll, BlueScope, Lion and across the ditch at Fisher and Paykel New Zealand.
It's clear that these attacks are accelerating as these cybercriminal syndicates turn their attention to our region, but cybersecurity remains at the bottom of the Morrison government's to-do list. Since the Prime Minister abolished the dedicated role in the executive for cybersecurity, on coming to office, no member of the Morrison government has even mentioned ransomware in parliament. Now, while Australian companies are being targeted by sophisticated, well-resourced international crime syndicates, Minister Dutton is MIA. He hasn't said a word about it. In contrast, Labor has released, in May, a discussion paper on Australia's national cyber-resilience canvassing the policies that Australia needs now to respond to the new cyberchallenges confronting the nation. It's time that the Morrison government followed Labor's lead and started taking Australia's national cyber-resilience seriously.
Taree Universities Campus
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (13:38): I'd like to give a big shout-out to the volunteer members of the Taree Universities Campus bid, who were successful in the latest Regional University Centres funding round. I congratulate the chairman, John Howard; Alison McIntosh; Lisa Proctor; Graham Brown; Maurie Stack; and Steve Atkins for their commitment and work in getting us to where we are today. I'd also like to thank Moira Coffey for all her work and advice and the members of the Geraldton Universities Centre that we visited for their advice. I'd also like to thank the various organisations and institutions in the Manning and Great Lakes area that contributed to the project steering committee, including council, local schools, business chambers and potential partnering institutions.
I look forward to many of those members joining the soon-to-be-established Taree Universities Campus foundation, which will be a fundraising entity and also voluntary to help support the upcoming Taree Universities Campus. It will be a great asset to the whole Manning and Great Lakes community. There is a crying need for this, which was established in an electorate-wide survey of what people had as their vision for our community in the 2030s. An expanded opportunity for tertiary studies will complement the TAFE, which is one of the partners in the steering committee, and many of the businesses that are looking for upgraded qualifications for their members.
HomeBuilder
Dr ALY (Cowan) (13:39): I'm trying to fathom the logic of the government's recently announced renovation grants. In principle, it sounds really great—$25,000 to carry out renovations on a home. But I'm just trying to picture a scenario in which this scheme was thought up. There is $25,000 to spend on a bathroom or kitchen renovation for those who earn less than $125,000 but have $150,000 lying around to overcapitalise on their homes that are less than $750,000 in value. What are they going to do—build a gold-plated loo? I just don't understand in what universe this makes sense. But it is a serious issue. The seriousness is expressed in the despair and disappointment of the people of Cowan who contacted me when they heard about this renovation grant. At first they were very excited to finally have enough funds to be able to carry out much-needed renovations and repairs on their homes. Maria, who's a 48-year-old single mum, rang my office in tears. Her house desperately needs its leaking roof fixed and is in desperate need of renovation, but she can't afford $150,000 to be eligible for the $25,000 grant. Or there is Max, who's 86 years old and in a wheelchair—his home desperately needs renovations. (Time expired)
Moore Electorate: Roads
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:41): Linking Whitfords Avenue with the realigned Gnangara Road will improve access for local commuters to employment and services in the Wangara industrial and commercial area. This critical east-west route through the heartland of the Moore electorate will complement other key links between the Joondalup and Wanneroo communities currently under construction at Joondalup Drive and Ocean Reef Road. To date, the project has experienced significant delays.
A commitment of $2 million was made ahead of the 2017 state election. However, construction works are yet to commence. The project contains two elements: firstly, the realignment of Gnangara Road to meet Whitfords Avenue; secondly, the construction of a roundabout on Wanneroo Road at the new intersection of both aforementioned major roads. It is a project which requires the joint cooperation of the City of Wanneroo and Main Roads WA.
The project has bipartisan support from local, state and federal members of parliament. Local landowners have plans to invest in the construction of new commercial buildings along the realigned Gnangara Road frontage, with national tenants ready to establish stores, creating local jobs.
In the current economic climate, we cannot afford to have this project delayed any longer. In this parliament, I call upon Main Roads WA and the City of Wanneroo to deliver this infrastructure without further delay. (Time expired)
Indi Electorate: Small Business
Dr HAINES (Indi) (13:42): I rise today to speak about the long-awaited extension of the $10,000 small business bushfire recovery grant. My electorate of Indi, like many this summer, suffered through devastating bushfires. These fires left many small businesses without income, including some not directly affected by flames. For these small businesses, much-needed tourism stopped the day the fires came, and so did their income. Unfortunately, the small business grant was not available to them by virtue of their postcodes.
The local government areas of Indigo, Wangaratta and Mansfield—popular summer tourist destinations—did not qualify. This was a devastating blow for Mansfield businesses, like Hidden Trails by Horseback and the Mansfield Hotel; Wangaratta businesses, like The Oven at Cheshunt and Tolpuddle farm; and Indigo businesses, like Rebus and Provenance, that heavily rely on tourists. The wineries of Rutherglen, Beechworth, King Valley and Delatite also lost revenue. I am pleased to say that they can now apply. I give a shout-out to all the businesses affected, because you have been patient and dogged, and I thank you for your persistence. I thank the mayors and the CEOs for their persistence too. So, while I celebrate this announcement, I know that for many it has come too late. I'm committed to ensuring that the next phase of the bushfire recovery is more responsive, driven by the community, for the whole community.
Push-Up Challenge
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (13:44): I rise today to recognise the Push-up Challenge, an event which ran for three weeks in May this year. This challenge aims to increase awareness of lives lost to suicide in Australia and encourage conversations about mental health by asking participants to complete 3,046 push-ups over three weeks—that number, sadly, representing the number of deaths by suicide in Australia in 2018. This year, over 130,000 people across Australia participated in the challenge, doing over 121 million push-ups and, far more importantly, raising more than $5 million for headspace.
I recently met Nick Hudson, a Curtin resident who is the inspiration, brains and grunt behind the challenge. Nick told me about how a push-up competition between a few mates in 2018 evolved into the challenge it is today because of his experience with the depression he suffered as a result of requiring open-heart surgery. In response to COVID-19, and understanding the potential mental impact of our social isolation, Nick and the team decided to run the event earlier this year and used their online community to help build connections between people despite our physical separation. I commend Nick Hudson on his initiative and ongoing commitment. He has used a devastating personal experience to make a difference to others. As hard as push-ups are, and as tough as the challenge was, they are nothing compared to the pain, suffering and impact that suicide causes.
HomeBuilder
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (13:45): From the party that brought us knighthoods, robodebt and the right to bigotry, we shouldn't expect much. But, even by their standards, HomeBuilder is a home blunder. It's a policy that worsens inequality and does nothing for growth. With six months to start, that narrows eligibility down to one group of people: those who were going to build anyway.
Modest renovators need not apply; the project has to be worth at least $150,000. Who has that kind of money sitting around? When I crunched the ABS figures, I found it's only the wealthiest fifth of Australians. So, with a massive social housing deficit and the lowest homeownership rate in 60 years, the government will pay wealthy households to do renovations they were already going to do. Yet the government has been doing more huffing and puffing than occurred in the story of the Three Little Pigs. The housing minister says there'll be hundreds of thousands of jobs, and the Treasurer says there'll be 7,000 projects. The fact check on this isn't hard. Just divide the first number by the second and ask yourself: who's telling porkies?
The Prime Minister needs to stop taking his policy ideas from reality TV. Just because you gave 300 grand to Scott Cam doesn't mean The Block is a good basis for our economic recovery. It's as absurd as the minister for multiculturalism downplaying racism by pointing to MasterChef. In reality, this government is more like Married At First Sight: a train wreck Australians can't look away from.
Leichhardt Electorate: FNQ Spirits
Mr ENTSCH ( Leichhardt ) ( 13:47 ): I rise this afternoon to highlight one of the many fantastic businesses in my electorate who stepped up to the plate during the recent health crisis. FNQ Spirits is a small craft distillery located in Cairns and is more used to quenching people's thirst through its signature rum product, Croc Piss. When the pandemic hit and the supply chain was disrupted, there was a call to arms by government for local industry to step up. FNQ Spirits' owner, Troy Read, answered the call and started produced much-needed hand sanitiser for our local community. Troy had no hesitation in investing his own money to support our local community in this time of need. FNQ Spirits sold large volumes of hand sanitiser to the general public and to military personnel, along with community and volunteer organisations, throughout the pandemic. Stock has flown off the shelves. In fact, he's making 400 litres a week, using local sugar cane.
However, when the supply chain was restored, people started reverting to cheaper products—imported brands. A call to arms from the paper saw the locals remember. However, the same call needs to be heeded by government at all levels: support businesses that were encouraged to diversify, and ensure that their products are included in government preferred lists. We've done it in Cairns. The local community certainly stepped up when the chips were down, and FNQ Spirits is doing exceptionally well there. But I'd like to see it happen in government. (Time expired)
JobKeeper Payment
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (13:48): It is lucky that the PM's focus group didn't decide to call it 'promise keeper' rather than JobKeeper. If they had, they would be in a real pickle now, because all we are seeing is broken promises. The PM's commitment to keep JobKeeper till September didn't even survive 72 hours from when he said it. These broken promises tell you everything you need to know about how this government values work. The male dominated construction sector receives targeted taxpayer stimulus. The childcare sector, which is 97 per cent female, is the first to have its funding ripped out from under it under the JobKeeper package. The average Australian taxpayer is a 38-year-old working woman with two kids. She is the one who is getting done over by the Prime Minister's approach to economic stimulus and the economic recovery. It is her taxpayer dollars; it is her right to work—all being completely tossed aside by this Prime Minister. Australian women are not only losing their jobs at a faster rate than men during this COVID-19 recession; they are being helped less by emergency government stimulus. They deserve better. Let's not waste this parliamentary sitting week; let's fix JobKeeper so it actually is 'promise keeper' and fulfils the promise made to Australian women at the election—that the government would act with their interests at heart.
Australia's First Airmail Flight: 100th Anniversary
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (13:50): Lismore is a site of an important moment in our postal service history. This month marks 100 years since Australia's first official airmail flight sanctioned by the Postmaster-General. The flight took place on Saturday 26 June 1920 when pilot Frank Roberts took off from a paddock in Lismore, flying to Tenterfield via Casino. Due to the isolation of our communities and a poor connection road, Lismore council had lobbied the Postmaster-General to consider airmail. It proposed its own region as an ideal trial site. At first, the Postmaster-General was not a fan, due to the cost and the reliability concerns. However, with Lismore chamber of commerce also pushing for the trial and a suitable plane and pilot found, the Postmaster-General sanctioned the trial. The plane carried 8,000 letters, which were then sent to Sydney from Tenterfield by train.
This week, there was a commemorative event to mark the occasion. Special mail was dropped in the 130-year-old postbox in Woodlark Street. This will then be transferred on a plane, following the original flight path, to Tenterfield. I would like to thank mail trail committee members Geoff Wotherspoon, David Cameron, and Bill and Helen McDermott, and also the President of the Richmond River Historical Society, Dr Robert Smith. Geoff Wotherspoon recently wrote Per Aerial Mail, a book about this significant event. He captured the excitement and the spirit of the aviators and the mail contractors who serviced regional Australia a century ago. I congratulate Geoff and everyone involved in celebrating this important milestone.
Callaghan, William
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (13:52): At 2 pm on Monday, a family's worst fears were realised. Whilst walking to the summit of Mount Disappointment, their 14-year-old boy raced ahead of his family and became separated from them, beginning two days of anxious wait. Today I rise to acknowledge the incredible efforts of the emergency service workers and the hundreds of volunteers who dropped everything and joined in the effort to find young lad Will Callaghan in the bush at Mount Disappointment. People were on foot, on horseback and on motorbikes, and community members drove around in cars all night, searching in the night and early in the morning in below-zero temperatures as helicopters flew above their heads. The concern that was etched on the face of his mum, Penny, was echoed throughout the community. All our local Facebook groups were abuzz with people sharing information to help with the search for young Will. People stood up, they got out and they helped in the effort because a young boy's life was in danger. This epitomises the Australian spirit. Some have said that this story is a miracle, but actually I think it demonstrates the unwavering commitment and coordination displayed by police, SES and the local community, who pulled together a topnotch successful rescue mission. The only sour point was the theft of a searcher's motorcycle, but the amazing people at Happy Belly Burgers at Whittlesea have started a GoFundMe page to help replace Chaz's bike. To Clive, I say: thank you for your generosity. The result? Well, it's really best summed up by Research resident Ben Gibbs, who said:
I am the one who stumbled across him, but everyone found him…
I hear Will is recovering well after a big feed of Macca's chips and nuggets. I'm so lucky to represent the magnificent people of McEwen. To everyone who pitched in, I say thank you. (Time expired)
Northern Territory: Parliamentary Representation
Mr JOYCE (New England) (13:53): It's interesting coming and standing back here, because you feel almost disassociated from the process of the parliament. Where you find even more of a sense of disassociation from the parliament is when you're not even here or you don't have a representative here. I rise today to speak about enfranchisement, especially of those in the Northern Territory. We'll soon be seeing a further redistribution, and there's a possibility—or it's mooted—that the Northern Territory will lose one of its seats. Currently, the seat of Lingiari covers 17 per cent of our nation's surface, which means, if we extrapolate that out, there'd only be six seats in Australia. We have this absurdity of so few people representing such a wide landmass. If we were to have a redistribution in the Northern Territory where they lost a seat, we would have one seat representing approximately 200,000 people, whilst in Tasmania one seat represents about 110,000 people. This is something that we must draw a line in the sand on, especially with the National Party representing regional people in regional areas. I've had introduced into this House a bill for regional senators, which didn't seem to have much support, even though it's something that this chamber could do. But I'm not going to stand idly by and see the people of the Northern Territory disenfranchised to merely one seat.
Australia Post
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:55): I don't know about you, but when the post comes at my place it's usually bills, and a lot of them have been going up under this government. Sometimes, during COVID, it's been a lovely note or a card from someone unexpected. But the point is: the postie still comes. This government, through the guise of COVID, wants to change it so that, in areas like mine, the postie only delivers letters once every seven business days. The Prime Minister wants to ride roughshod. It is like the old days where the postmaster-general gave the tick to the postie to deliver. The postmaster-general would be rolling in his grave if he could see what this government is doing to Australia Post all over this country.
I hear people saying, 'Yes, but there are a lot more parcels; there's a bit of internet shopping going on.' Indeed there is. But Australia Post can deliver a parcel and a letter. In communities like mine, where we have older people who may be on a pension, budgeting from week to week, seven days is a long time between receiving mail. What if it's a legal document? There are so many reasons we need to keep Australia Post relevant, and none more than one in four posties losing their jobs in regional Australia. I say to the government: hands off the posties. Keep delivering, and not just the veil of delivering— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Economy
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (13:56): The latest ABS numbers record that, as a result of the coronavirus restrictions, employment has decreased by 594,300 people and monthly working hours have fallen by 10 per cent. We are borrowing tens of billions of dollars that not a single member of this parliament is likely to see repaid in their career. Lockdowns don't just cause economic damage; they also have health costs, both mental and physical. Therefore, any remaining COVID related restriction must be backed up by weighing both the costs and the benefits. For the private sector, lockdowns destroy both lives and livelihoods. At first we were right to err on the side of caution because of the unknowns. But we now know this is not a re-run of the Spanish flu. The studies show that asymptomatic spread of the virus is 'very rare'. The curve has been flattened. New South Wales has gone two weeks without one single community transmission. Discriminations, restrictions and the denial of Australians' constitutional right to cross interstate borders, which are nothing other than lines on a map, must be removed without any further delay. There is no longer any legitimate argument for the ongoing wilful violation of our constitution by continuing these border restrictions. They must end now.
COVID-19: Higher Education
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:58): On behalf of the thousands of workers at the University of New South Wales and other Australian universities, I ask the Prime Minister: why has your government abandoned universities during the COVID-19 pandemic? University education is one of the nation's most important industries and our largest employer. Our universities employ 260,000 people directly, and many more indirectly, across every state and territory in the country, yet the government has refused to make universities eligible for JobKeeper payments. Universities have seen huge falls in student numbers and revenue, and tens of thousands of jobs are now on the line. Academics, tutors, admin staff, library staff, catering staff, ground staff, cleaners and many more, all with family, are trying to make ends meet.
The government is also denying universities access to low-interest loans. University staff are doing their bit, volunteering to take pay cuts, taking fewer hours with less pay and leave without pay, but the government needs to play its part. Higher education is a huge contributor to our nation's income and economic growth, and it's an important driver of innovation and improved productivity, but it's been forgotten by this government. Universities are also home to the brilliant researchers that we're depending on to come up with cures and new treatments for COVID-19. I call on the government: put aside your ideological crusade against universities and give these important institutions and their workers the support that they deserve.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
JobKeeper Payment
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister committed to the hard snapback of JobKeeper in September, despite warnings from the OECD about withdrawal of support?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:00): The government has a review of the JobKeeper program which is currently underway. As we said, it's being conducted and will be concluded in the month of June. The government will then consider the recommendations of that report. These things are not done in haste, as I outlined yesterday to the member for Rankin when he put this matter, and I made references, that he may not be familiar with those processes of government, but you do things in a very considered and careful way when you do these things. So that's what we're doing.
As I stressed to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, JobKeeper is not the only measure of support. I note that the OECD has acknowledged Australia, today, and the extensive measures that Australia has put in place—comprehensive, right across the board, and recognised, at an international level, for being of sufficient scale to ensure that Australians have been getting the economic lifeline they need during this crisis.
So the government will continue to plan for the many months ahead and, indeed, the many years ahead. The government's plans go forward to ensure that we can rebuild the economy and that we can get Australians back into jobs. We'll be using the full suite of measures that have been available to us from very early on in the crisis. Indeed, on that very first day, when the last meeting of COAG was held, the governor of the Reserve Bank presented to the premiers and me as well as the secretary of Treasury, and both of those experts in this area encouraged the government and all the states and territories to ensure that the government did the fiscal heavy lifting as we went through this crisis. And that's exactly what we have done. We have responded to the crisis in historic levels, unprecedented in this country, which has been giving Australians the confidence that has been building day after day, week after week, under the strong economic policies and response of this government.
COVID-19
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's actions to address the coronavirus pandemic have helped Australia avoid the worst effects of the virus and put our economy in a better position to recover, to create jobs and to rebuild livelihoods?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:03): I thank the member for Ryan for his question, and I thank him very much for all of his input over these recent months as we've worked through the COVID crisis and for the leadership he is showing in his local community in Brisbane. Australia, it is recognised, has been leading the world in our health response to the COVID-19 crisis, and that is a great credit not only to the many men and women who work right across our health system in this country at state and federal level, but I pay credit to the leadership shown by my colleagues, the premiers and chief ministers around the country, working together with the federal cabinet and working together particularly with the Minister for Health and the Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy.
But also the OECD has confirmed today that Australia is also leading the world in our economic response through this crisis and, indeed, is one of the top three nations in terms of the economic outlook of the report released by the OECD. As heartbreaking as it is that we're expecting a five per cent fall in GDP in this calendar year, that compares to 7.3 per cent in the United States, eight per cent in Canada, 8.9 per cent in New Zealand and 11½ per cent in the United Kingdom, and it has been Australia's swift and targeted and comprehensive actions that have ensured that we've been able to provide the confidence and support and the economic lifeline that Australian workers need, that Australian businesses need, that Australian investors need and that the Australian economy has needed.
And this has been backed up when we've gone to market, as we've raised the considerable funds that we had to raise to support these lifeline measures—some $120 billion raised in debt markets around the world with many times coverage, particularly on those bond raisings and the syndications. That is a vote of confidence in this country. It is a vote of confidence in how Australia is leading when it comes to our response to the COVID crisis, not just on health but when it comes to the twin crisis with the economic crisis as well. We have always acknowledged, right from the beginning, that there was a battle on two fronts. We've been waging that battle and, for the sake of Australians, we have been succeeding in that battle on their behalf. Consumer confidence, under the Westpac survey, has restored to pre-COVID levels and, under the NAB survey, business confidence has 70 per cent recovered to its pre-COVID levels.
Our focus, though, is not just on the short-term needs and the short-term responses but what is needed over the next five years. And our JobMaker plan, which goes over those next five years, is not just intended to make sure we get those jobs back in the economy; it is intended to set up another generation of great prosperity and economic success in this country, as has occurred before. That's what we're planning to deliver. (Time expired)
JobKeeper Payment
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (14:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the government has been all over the place on how long workers who rely on JobKeeper have guaranteed support or whether they'll be left behind. Why won't the Prime Minister give a straight answer to this simple question: will more Australian workers be kicked off JobKeeper early or not?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:06): The only people talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the issue of the COVID response are the Labor Party. They oppose the very measures they support. Each way, on every issue, that has been the response of the Labor Party—feigning so much support for the government's response but taking every single opportunity to niggle and undermine for their own base political purposes.
Opposition members interjecting—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The members on my left. The member for Lalor.
Mr MORRISON: It is disappointing that that is the approach that the Labor Party has sought to take during this crisis.
Mr Khalil interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Wills.
Mr MORRISON: But I am pleased that there are better examples, and that has been exhibited by my colleagues who sit around the national cabinet table—the Labor and Liberal premiers who sit around that table and make these decisions. I have made it abundantly clear that JobKeeper is in place for the legislated period that we've put it in place, which is until the end of September. And that is what we are doing. We have been saying that consistently. But those opposite have sought to sow confusion and to undermine these positions.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: The interjection comes about child care. I explained the matter very clearly yesterday. We put in place a better support for workers—
Ms Rishworth interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingston.
Mr MORRISON: over $700 million in direct subsidy support to the childcare sector to support those jobs, on top of the rebate which extends to a 95 per cent rebate for childcare fees for persons who are on the JobKeeper payment. So Australians know that they are getting the leadership from this government when it comes to the economic policies and lifeline they need to move through this crisis. As we've seen from the OECD, that has been recognised. It is recognised across this country, it is recognised internationally, but because of the political motives of the Labor Party they just don't want to see it.
COVID-19: Economy
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (14:09): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison- McCormack government is supporting local jobs and communities through infrastructure rollout as part of the recovery from COVID-19, and how can local governments assist in this plan?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure,Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:09): I thank the member for Mallee for her question. She's a great advocate for her Victorian electorate. She understands just how important local government is. She understands how important stimulus is to those local governments. She represents 12 councils in the electorate of Mallee—12 councils that will receive, between them, $18.8 million as part of the stimulus package that we've just announced, of $1.8 billion, including $500 million under the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program. There will be $500 million towards those local roads, towards that community infrastructure, and a bring-forward of $1.3 billion of the financial assistance grants. That's so important so that we get the money out onto the ground for those local councils, because we know that, when it comes to local procurement, when it comes to local jobs, the $500 million as part of the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is going to hit the ground, and we know that the bring-forward of the FAGs is going to be so important for those councils.
The mayor of Buloke Shire Council, Carolyn Stewart, said of the stimulus package, the $1.8 billion, 'The doubling of the Roads to Recovery program and recent local roads and community infrastructure program announcements by the federal government are incredibly positive for the Buloke community.' Buloke represents Birchip, Charlton and Donald. They're great little towns, great little communities, and we want them to be their best selves. She continued, 'Agriculture is the mainstay of our shire, and investment into the local road network is critical to the safety and efficiency of our farming community.' Councillor Stewart understands, as does the member for Mallee—they both get it—how important this money is going to be for their local communities. And, of course, we understand that local councils have a role to play in cutting through some of the red tape that is impeding local jobs and local activities.
The Treasurer had a bit to say about that this morning, as did Mr Morrison—that's Ken Morrison, who is the Property Council of Australia chief executive. He had this to say:
“Australia is going to need its biggest engines of the economy firing and construction is one of those big engines,” … “It’s important that every planning authority and local council is taking its responsibility in this very seriously. They need to have a laser-beam focus in regards to assessing these projects and assessing them much faster.
We understand that. Certainly during the COVID-19 situation I've been working—as has the Prime Minister—with our Transport and Infrastructure Council ministers to ensure that we get through planning, we get through development and we get it done as quickly as possible. We're prepared to do it at federal and state level. I call on councils to do the same.
Pensions and Benefits
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:12): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister listen to 81 per cent of company directors, who want a cautious phasing-out of fiscal supports such as JobKeeper rather than the government's hard economic snapback?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:12): Once again, the member for Rankin misrepresents the government's position and he misrepresents the government's policies. He seems to be unaware of the broad range of measures that the government has been putting in place—globally recognised—that are providing the necessary economic supports. We have listened carefully right across the economy, to those working, to those running businesses—particularly to those running businesses. That's why the Treasurer announced the extension of the instant asset write-off, a very important measure. That's why the measures that will kick in in July which involve further support and stimulus payments in the economy in July will be occurring. It's why one of the first things we did was to ensure that jobseeker would be at a sufficient level—
Mr Frydenberg interjecting—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Can the Prime Minister just pause for a second? Both the Treasurer and the shadow Treasurer are having what looks like a fascinating discussion, but they're about have it outside the chamber. I'm trying to listen to the Prime Minister.
Mr MORRISON: What the government will continue to do is make decisions about the level of supports we provide into the economy based on the best possible advice and the best reading of the economic situation as that becomes increasingly clear. That's what we're doing as a cabinet. That's what the Expenditure Review Committee, which is the committee of cabinet that is considering these issues, is doing. We are looking at all of those matters extremely carefully. That may not suit the convenience of the member for Rankin or indeed the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else, but, if they want to work to a political timetable and agenda, that's up to them. The government has the important responsibility of calibrating our support for economic lifelines into this country and ensuring they are done in a way that limits the burdens on future generations, that is targeted and comprehensive and that uses the mechanisms that are already in place so as to not risk the sort of waste that we saw when stimulus measures were put in many years ago.
We have learnt the lessons of Labor's failures in this area. I'm sure if they'd had the opportunity to sit on these benches, which I'm sure would put a shudder through the spines of all Australians—if they believed that the Labor Party were dealing with this issue right now, it would put a shudder through their spines. Australians will feel very comfortable that this government is taking a mature and responsible approach to calibrating our economic supports on the best available economic data and not rushing off for a headline, which is what the member for Rankin seems only to be interested in.
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. There have been 437 Aboriginal deaths in custody since the royal commission delivered its final report. Prime Minister, if you don't want Black Lives Matters protests to continue, why don't you do something about institutionalised racism in this country? Will you agree with the Greens proposal to put action on black deaths in custody on the national cabinet meeting for this Friday and make it a standing agenda item for every future national cabinet meeting, with strict time lines for changes to the criminal law so that we stop locking up Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at such high rates?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:16): I thank the member for the question on what is an extremely important issue, and that is Indigenous deaths, whether it be in police custody or it be in custody more generally. As the Minister for Indigenous Australians pointed out to the House yesterday, this already is a very significant issue of attention for not just the government but state and territory governments as well. It previously did feature, with two specific goals more broadly under justice headings in this area that related to the previous Closing the Gap objectives, but it is also featuring in the new, reformed set of Closing the Gap goals, which is now coming to agreement, for the first time having the direct involvement of Indigenous peak groups in agreeing what those goals should be.
It is also the case that, in New South Wales, for example, we are pleased that progress has been made. In police custody in New South Wales, I'm advised there has been one death since 2000, and in particular 2000 was when the new arrangements were put in place to provide access for Indigenous persons who found themselves in police custody to make calls and get access to legal advice. The government is now funding that program over the next three years, and that has proven to be a very effective mechanism to prevent deaths in police custody. Every death in custody, particularly Indigenous deaths in custody, is an absolute national shame and tragedy. What the Minister for Indigenous Australians has been working to do is also to address the contributing factors which find Indigenous Australians in custody.
You asked about the agenda of the national cabinet. When I announced the formation of the national cabinet going forward, I also announced the establishment of the National Federation Reform Council. There are only two national task forces that report to that council. Importantly, one deals with these very issues in Indigenous affairs. The other one deals with violence against women. We all agreed—premiers, myself, chief ministers—that they were the issues that needed constant national priority and attention by the National Federation Reform Council, which brings all the key decision-makers together, and for progress to be tracked against the successes that we hope to achieve in that area.
Our government is very committed to action in this area. It's an important issue. But when it comes to the issue of gatherings and protests, the health advice says it puts other Australians' lives at risk, including in particular Indigenous lives. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree with me in saying: 'Do not go to those rallies. You are putting others' lives at risk.' The issue you raised is important, and it is understood and acknowledged, I believe, by all in this chamber. That is a great reflection on this country.
COVID-19: Economy
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (14:19): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer inform the House how Australia's economic recovery from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic compares to that of other countries, and will the Treasurer outline the pathway for the Australian economy's return to growth?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:19): I thank the member for Curtin for her question and acknowledge her extensive experience as a legal academic before coming to this place, including being the vice-chancellor of Notre Dame University.
Today the OECD released an important report. It painted a pretty grim picture of the global economic outlook, suggesting that the global economy will contract by around six per cent this year. To put that in context, at the height of the GFC in 2009 the global economy contracted by 0.1 per cent. And the OECD talked about this being the deepest recession since the global Depression. But the positive news for Australia out of this OECD report was that the economy here will contract by around five per cent this year but will grow by around four per cent next year, and that we have performed very well compared to other nations around the world. Japan is expected to contract by six per cent, the United States by 7.3 per cent, Canada by eight per cent, New Zealand by 8.9 per cent, Italy by 11.3 per cent, France by 11.4 per cent and the United Kingdom by 11.5 per cent.
The OECD pointed out that, in their words, our massive macroeconomic support has made a real difference. It's supported people in jobs and helped protect livelihoods. The cash flow boost, the instant asset write-off and the JobKeeper program have all been very significant, including in the honourable member's electorate. Jane King at Barchetta cafe on Cottesloe Beach said that she used the instant asset write-off to go and purchase a new industrial pizza oven and new sinks and dishwashers. She talked about the JobKeeper program, in her words, being a lifesaver. She talked about her 14 employees. She said that employees are like family, and I'm sure she speaks for employers right around the country. She said the JobKeeper program and the other supports from the government enabled her to keep those 14 employees in a job.
The Prime Minister clearly laid out at the National Press Club a supply-side reform agenda: skills, industrial relations and more flexible labour markets, tax reform, infrastructure—our 10-year $100 billion program—and of course the adaptation of new technology, for example, through the consumer data right. This is what we are doing to drive the Australian economy forward. We know there's going to be a higher debt burden in the future, but the answer is not higher taxes; it's through growing the economy.
Australian Constitution
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (14:22): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Minister for Indigenous Australians said yesterday:
We're confident that the Australian people will be able to have their say on an Indigenous voice this year.
When will your government hold a referendum to enshrine a voice to the parliament in the Constitution?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:23): I want to thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians and indeed the shadow minister for how they have sought to work together on this issue, because it is my personal hope that Australia will reach a point where we can have a consensus where this could be achieved. But it has always been my view that I am not interested in seeing issues go forward that may fail and that will divide Australians. I want to do things that bring Australians together around this proposition, and I hope that we will be able to do that as soon as possible. I cannot say when that will be, because we have not arrived at that point, and I still think there is quite a journey that we are all on. I want to thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians for his commitment, his dedication, his passion and his persistence as he has sought to build consensus on this issue. But we are not there yet, and I hope one day we may be.
COVID-19: Foreign Investment
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (14:24): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House the importance of foreign investment to Australia's economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic and how the Morrison government's strengthened foreign investment rules will ensure our national interests are better protected?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:24): I thank the member for Herbert for his question and acknowledge his service for our country on the battlefield in Afghanistan and also his hard work for his local community.
Foreign investment is absolutely critical to Australia's economic prosperity and also to the recovery after the COVID crisis. One in 10 Australian jobs is connected to foreign investment, and every sector of the economy has benefited—manufacturing, mining, agriculture, tourism and, increasingly, financial services. There is about $3.8 trillion of foreign capital here in Australia. Our major investors include the United States—more than 20 per cent comes from the United States, more than 10 per cent comes from each of the United Kingdom and Japan, and a bit over five per cent comes from China.
We have always sought to get the balance right with foreign investment—on the one hand to be an attractive destination to welcome foreign investment, but on the other hand to ensure that our national interest is always protected. That's absolutely critical to maintaining community confidence in the integrity of our system. But our geopolitical and geostrategic environment is becoming increasingly complex. With technology evolving, we have sought to upgrade and strengthen our foreign investment framework, like a lot of countries around the world have done. Foreign investment is increasingly being used for strategic objectives, not purely commercial ones.
As the Prime Minister has said, foreign investment needs to be on our rules, on our terms and in our interests. That is why we are creating a new national-security test. If foreign investors, not just foreign-government investors but foreign investors more generally, invest in the sensitive national-security business—think defence supply chains, think utilities, think the energy sector and those businesses that are increasingly collecting sensitive national-security related data as well—they will face the scrutiny of the Foreign Investment Review Board. We're also increasing penalties, our enforcement regime and our compliance regime, and we're streamlining foreign investment where there is a foreign-government investor together with private investors with passive capital in a non-sensitive sector.
Foreign investment helps create jobs in this country. But, also, we must always ensure that we put it through the national-security lens and that, when foreign investment occurs in this country, it's on our rules, on our terms and in our national interest.
COVID-19: Social Housing
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (14:27): My question is to the Prime Minister. The OECD has specifically called for extra government investment in social housing to protect the economy from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Why is the government ignoring the OECD's advice on social housing?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:28): The government contributes around $6 billion a year to housing assistance. When it comes to social housing and other support, we know that under the former Treasurer, now Prime Minister, we established the NHFIC program to help grow the community-housing sector. We established the $1 billion National Housing Infrastructure Facility. Of that, $30 million was in the Hobart City Deal to build more than 100 social and affordable homes; $78 million was for domestic violence housing services; $60 million was for building emergency accommodation; and $18 million was for the Keeping Women Safe in Their Homes program. Governments at all levels have responsibility when it comes to social housing. This is primarily a state responsibility but the Commonwealth continues to invest significantly in social and community housing, particularly through the $1 billion NHFIC program.
COVID-19
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (14:29): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please update the House on the Morrison government's effort to stop the spread of COVID-19 and outline the importance of avoiding a second wave of the virus?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (14:30): I want to thank the member for Chisholm, who has been an outstanding community leader throughout this. I would say this: what we have seen has challenged Australia, but it's been a great challenge for the world. We need to remind ourselves at this moment that approximately 420,000 people have lost their lives, and the number of cases is growing at a faster rate, according to the World Health Organization, than ever before. The challenge that we see is real and significant.
At home, we have had extraordinary national success, and there are many people who have been involved in that. The great protections that we've put in place—the borders, the testing with over 1.7 million tests, the tracing and the distancing—have all played their part. Those first three have been fundamental, and I'm very confident about them. On the distancing, Australians have done an amazing job, but it has come at a huge economic cost. It's come at the cost of isolation for individuals and the challenge in terms of anxiety—all of these things. But I'm confident that the first three protections—of borders, testing and tracing—are absolutely secure, and, as we follow the medical expert panel advice and we work through the national cabinet, the distancing is also being well managed. Australians are on the road to recovery. They're on the road to protecting themselves in terms of their health, but they're also on the road to regaining their future with regard to their economic livelihoods. These things matter. They are about lives and livelihoods.
However, we do know that there is a risk, and it's not the careful, calibrated removal of restrictions; it's about a breakout through mass gatherings. Just today we have heard there was a protester at the Melbourne marches—the most noble of causes, but the marches themselves were mass gatherings, and that's what matters; the health advice beforehand was absolutely critical—who has been diagnosed with coronavirus. The AHPPC has just met and has said: 'The medical expert panel emphasises once more the very high-risk environment of a protest, with large numbers of people closely gathering and challenges in identifying all contacts. AHPPC again urges the Australian community to not participate in mass gatherings.' The medical experts have been absolutely clear. There are not safe mass gatherings. Please do not go. Please do not endanger your fellow Australians.
Sheean, Ordinary Seaman Edward (Teddy)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why has the Prime Minister commissioned a review of the review of the review of the review of the failure to award a Victoria Cross to Tasmania's Teddy Sheean? Will the Prime Minister now do the right thing and support the unanimous independent recommendation that recently went to the government, but was overturned, that Teddy Sheean be given a Victoria Cross posthumously without delay?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:33): I thank the member for his question on this matter. There can be no more important decision that a Prime Minister would make than to recommend to Her Majesty regarding the awarding of the Victoria Cross. That is true when that is awarded in the same period of time in which the acts have been conducted. But, when one is considering acts of 80 years ago where these matters have been considered on numerous occasions and, on all of those occasions bar one, the recommendation has not been to do this, a Prime Minister has to be very careful and has to set a very high bar.
It is true that the tribunal are charged with making recommendations, and they have made a recommendation. The valour inquiry of 2013 also made decisions in relation to this matter, and those two decisions are at odds with each other. As a result of the valour inquiry report a set of principles was set out which was adopted as government policy by those opposite, as the government at the time, and has been continued on by our government—and that is that, to take such a matter forward, there must be compelling new evidence that would support that recommendation.
There is dispute about that in the advice that I've received in forming the view that I have made to this point in time. I note that the Leader of the Opposition, before forming a view, has not sought out that advice from the government, from the Department of Veterans' Affairs or from the Department of Defence and has moved immediately to form a position. That is a matter for him. I will be more cautious. I will uphold the integrity of our awards and honours system to ensure that we will understand whether this high bar has been met. That is why I have asked former defence minister Brendan Nelson, former solicitor-general David Bennet, former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Dr Shergold and senior curator and historian of the New South Wales Anzac Memorial Brad Manera, all outstanding individuals with expert experience in these areas, one simple question: has there been compelling new evidence?
The Leader of the Opposition may wish to move and take a decision that he has made without reference to that type of advice, but I will not.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, my question went to the decision of the tribunal, which made a decision 11-0, which I have read and do support.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
Mr MORRISON: Yes.
The SPEAKER: I call the member for Higgins.
COVID-19: Economy
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (14:36): Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting small businesses through the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery, including through extending the instant asset write-off scheme?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister might cease their conversation.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr Morrison interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister! I'm not going to call the minister to answer the question until the conversation stops. The minister has the call.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:37): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the member for her question. I know that she, like all members of the government, is 100 per cent committed to supporting our small and family businesses, particularly as the economy reopens and the COVID-19 health restrictions are being eased. The government has charted a strong path to ensure that Australia is leading the world on health and economic recovery, and we know that our small businesses are absolutely central to that. Because this government understands small businesses and the importance of improving cash flow, in March we increased the instant asset write-off from $30,000 to $150,000 and lifted the turnover threshold from $50 million to $500 million. We recognise that there is a very long road ahead of us to recovery, and this week we have extended the date for the instant asset write-off from 30 June to 31 December this year.
Our government is all about backing businesses to back themselves—encouraging resilience, investment and growth—and that's exactly what the instant asset write-off does. Every year, over 300,000 small businesses use the instant asset write-off to invest in their businesses. It is actually one of the most practical and well-used reforms that we have introduced. It supports our businesses to be able to reinvest in their own businesses, so it enables them to do things such as invest in tractors, vans, other equipment and machinery—tools that are essential to the work that they need to do—to help their businesses to grow and expand. Ultimately, that is going to lead to the retention of jobs and the creation of jobs.
The extension that we have announced allows businesses some additional time where there have been delays due to supply chain interruptions. That's really important because, as I've said, we know that there is a long road through to recovery. We understand that there are many businesses that need support, so what we have done with the instant asset write-off is specifically target it to help those small businesses. As we work towards a strong economic recovery, which is exactly what this government is doing—and Australia clearly continues to lead the world in this—Australian small and family businesses can be absolutely assured that the Morrison government is backing them the whole way.
Pensions and Benefits
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:40): My question is again to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for the illegal robodebt scheme that he created and announced?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:40): I thank the member for his question. I made reference to this in answers yesterday. The issue of legality goes to one simple point, and that is the use of income averaging as the sole purpose upon which a debt may be raised for the purposes of reclaiming that debt where money has been paid in excess of a beneficiary's entitlements. It is true that, as a minister in previous portfolios and indeed as Prime Minister, I always accept responsibility for the decisions we take and the policies we support, and that policy was to use income averaging as a determinant to raise debt.
It was the same policy that the Labor Party used, and would account for some or more than 20 per cent of the debts they raised on exactly the same basis. The hypocrisy that is put forward by the Labor Party when the legal issue that is involved here is about income averaging as being the basis of raising the debt! My government is not going to walk back from the idea that, when moneys have been overpaid, when benefits have been overpaid, we owe it to taxpayers to ensure that we reclaim those debts. Of course, that is what is necessary. It has to be done lawfully. Where issues of lawfulness are raised in relation to income averaging, then those corrections will have to be made. I accept responsibility as Prime Minister, as the cabinet and others who are involved and ministers previously involved certainly do.
The hypocrisy that is put forward by the Labor Party is that the very practice that they followed in government and that was continued by our government they now seek to draw some distinction with. It's not the case. The Leader of the Opposition, in his long six weeks as a member of the Expenditure Review Committee when he was in government, may not be familiar with how these things work. Some of us have spent a bit more time managing these issues than he has. For someone who has spent such a long time in this place, he has a very narrow set of experiences. If you want to ask about standing orders or how the parliament works, then this fellow is your man. When it comes to matters of economic policy and doing the right thing by Australian taxpayers, though, this Leader of the Opposition would not have a clue.
Rail Infrastructure
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (14:43): My question is to the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's Sydney Metro-Western Sydney Airport rail investment is boosting the JobMaker plan and supporting our economy—
Dr Freelander interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Macarthur can leave under 94(a), and the member for Lindsay can start again.
The member for Macarthur then left the chamber.
Mrs McINTOSH: My question is to the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's Sydney Metro-Western Sydney Airport rail investment is boosting the JobMaker plan and supporting our economy as we come out the other side of the coronavirus pandemic?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (14:44): Can I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. Last week I joined the member for Lindsay, along with the Prime Minister and the New South Wales Premier, to announce this massive new railway line which will connect the Sydney Metro right across to the Western Sydney airport, due for completion in 2026. This is a huge, $11 billion investment by the two levels of government. What it will do is: it will construct 23 kilometres of new railway line from the member for Lindsay's electorate, at St Marys Station, along to the airport and then on to the aerotropolis. Six brand-new stations will be built in the process, including putting St Marys underground, which I know the member for Lindsay is keen on seeing.
What this actually will mean, when completed, is that someone can live in somewhere like Penrith or St Marys, jump on a train and, within 15 minutes, can be at the airport to jump on a plane, or indeed to work there at the airport. It could mean that someone, an international visitor, could arrive at the Western Sydney airport and jump on a train and be somewhere else in Western Sydney within 15 minutes, or indeed be in the CBD of Sydney within 60 minutes. So this will have huge benefits, this particular project, for Western Sydney overall, when it is completed in 2026.
But equally importantly, it will have massive benefits in the short term as well, because this project is an absolute jobs bonanza. Fourteen thousand jobs are being created through the construction of these 23 kilometres worth of rail—14,000 jobs. That's carpenters; it's plumbers; it's electricians; it's tunnel makers; it's crane drivers; it's truck drivers; it's all the other suppliers which go into that as well. And my expectation is that the vast majority of those jobs will be sourced from people in Western Sydney, because that's indeed what we're seeing with the development of the Western Sydney airport, where over 40 per cent of people who work at the Western Sydney airport are indeed locals. Fourteen thousand jobs are being constructed in this process. That's on top of the 11,000 jobs which are being constructed for the Western Sydney airport process, as well as 4,000 jobs in other roadworks which are going on around Western Sydney.
This is exactly what this government is about. It's about building infrastructure for the future. It is about congestion busting. And of course it is about creating jobs, and this is a fantastic example of exactly that.
But we are doing this right across the country. We're doing this in Melbourne with the North East Link, where 10,000 jobs will be supported; up in Brisbane with the M1, where almost 2,000 jobs will be supported; in Adelaide with the north-south road, which will be 1,600 jobs; Metronet in Perth, with 10,000 jobs et cetera— (Time expired)
Pensions and Benefits
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's illegal robodebt scheme. Cancer-suffering grandfather Raymond had to sell his house and move into a shed to afford medical treatment. He says debt collectors ripped him to shreds over a $2,300 robodebt while he was in hospital. Why won't the government apologise to Mr Murphy and thousands of other Australians who they hounded with their unlawful robodebt scheme?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:48): I'll ask the Minister for Government Services to add to the answer. The business of raising and recovering debts on behalf of taxpayers is a difficult job, and it deals with Australians in many very sensitive circumstances, and of course I would deeply regret—deeply regret—any hardship that has been caused to people in the conduct of that activity. The government has many difficult jobs that it has to do, dealing with Australians in very sensitive circumstances, and that is true particularly at this time. It is our instruction that we would hope that all agents of the government, when pursuing the debt recovery option, would be sensitive to people's circumstances.
In relation to the particular gentleman that you referred to, that is a very distressing situation that you've raised. And I would apologise for any hurt or harm in the way that the government has dealt with that issue and to anyone else who has found themselves in those situations.
But the issue is the one of ensuring how the government can best do this, and, where there are lessons to be learnt here, they will be learnt, and that is what the Minister for Government Services is employing now. I'll ask the Minister for Government Services to add to the answer.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services ) (14:49): Thanks, Prime Minister. I would say to the member: if any member can refer any hardship cases through to me, I will ensure the department looks at it. Mental health and suicide, as we all know and we all appreciate, are very delicate issues. There are many factors that build into them. Services Australia assists people facing difficult situations every day. It has the largest social services network to support people within federal government departments in times of crisis and vulnerability and it does this every day. But, as the Prime Minister said, the collection of debts is a lawful responsibility of all governments.
Right now, just so that colleagues are aware in the House, 939,000 Australians have debts—over $5 billion worth—that the government lawfully has to collect across a whole range of programs. Governments of all persuasions have done this across the divide. The government, of course, have paused all debt collection across all programs as we work our way through the COVID crisis, but government will have to restart that debt collection. We will do it sensibly, we will do it engaging all people and we will do it in a very transparent manner. It is incumbent on us all, if we have constituents who are hurting or suffering, to bring them through to me. All colleagues know where I am. Give me a buzz and we will seek quickly to help you out.
Agriculture
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline the importance of agriculture in leading Australia's recovery from the impacts of coronavirus?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (14:51): I thank the member for Nicholls for his question. He represents an electorate with a very proud and rich history not only in agricultural production but also in processing. If there is one thing we can take from COVID-19,it is that Australians have awoken to the important role that agriculture plays in this country. Agriculture has provided Australia with one of the most secure food supply chains in the world. Despite the fires, the floods and the droughts, Australian primary producers have calmly and methodically continued to produce the very best food and fibre in the world.
The government moved very quickly to give the agricultural sector assurances that it was an essential service for Australians. That wasn't just the farmers; it was also the tyre fitters, the mechanics, the vets and the truckies who got the produce from the farm gate to the supermarkets on to your plate. We made sure we also supported them in practical measures by providing the labour required to harvest their produce. We extended the visas of those in the holiday-maker, seasonal worker and Pacific island visa categories by an additional 12 months, to provide our primary producers with the continuity of labour they need. They don't have the luxury of waiting for people to turn up to pick their fruit, their produce. They need them when their produce is ready. We were able to provide that certainty to Australian producers.
We also made sure that we continued to enrich brand Australia not just in producing the best food and fibre in the world but also by making sure the world continued to understand we're one of the most reliable suppliers in the world. We put $100 million into international air freight subsidies to keep our produce going around the world, keeping those expert markets open, particularly in high-end meat and in seafood, which was hit a very hard by COVID-19.
Despite all the challenges the agriculture sector has faced, in the first quarter of this year, on a five-year average, meat and live animal exports are up 41 per cent, dairy product exports are up 25 per cent and horticulture is up 31 per cent. To put that in perspective, the efforts of Australian agricultural producers are astounding. They continue to dust themselves off and have a crack, and they have had a mighty crack this year. With some rain, let me tell you, there's some buoyed optimism. ABARES has now predicted there will be an increase of over 50 per cent in our winter crop. These are astounding results by a sector that has been smashed from every part. It is also a huge lesson to every Australian that you should never take for granted the work that our primary producers do in supporting this nation, not only in our food security and our food supply but by being the bedrock of this nation's economy.
Pensions and Benefits
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (14:54): My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the government aware of how many Australians suffered severe psychological trauma or attempted to take their own life or, indeed, sadly, did take their own life due to the pressure of an unlawful robodebt?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services ) (14:54): I again reiterate to members of the House that mental health and suicide are delicate areas and there are many factors that contribute in these circumstances. We all know that talking about suicide and talking about issues of mental health require sensitivity. Can I caution the House, before jumping to any unfounded conclusions. I say again, Services Australia runs a very large social network support for people, in times of crisis and vulnerability. I would encourage all members to point people who are experiencing difficulties to those services.
Child Abuse
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (14:55): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney update the House on the important steps the Morrison government is taking to protect Australian children from exploitation and abuse?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:55): I thank the member for her question. One of the very disturbing features of the COVID-19 pandemic has been something that was noted recently by the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. Their child protection triage unit recently said that the average number of child exploitation reports that it receives has increased from 776 per month to 1,731 per month, during the period of the COVID pandemic. I think this was again stated by the eSafety Commissioner when she said that significant increases have occurred in reports to the eSafety Office about child sexual abuse material. She said, 'Abusers see COVID-19 as honey pot for them, with at-risk boys and girls spending so much more time at home and online.
I might just pause to note some of the remarkable efforts of AUSTRAC in its investigation of these types of matters. It was probably not the case in 2006, when AUSTRAC's role was expanded, that anyone would have realised exactly how important something that ostensibly was set up to investigate money laundering would be in uncovering these types of offences. In fact, it was AUSTRAC that recently revealed details of alleged payments from a New South Wales resident to a known child exploitation facilitator in the Philippines. Its work has been absolutely outstanding in uncovering this type of offending.
Of course, excellent investigative agencies and techniques still require ultimately very strong responses inside the justice system, which is the very point of the government's Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill, which will soon be put to a vote in the Senate. This bill contains a very comprehensive set of changes to the full cycle of the justice system that deals with serious child sex offenders. Obviously, the bill deals with the necessity for sentencing to become more aligned with community expectations about the seriousness of the commission of these sorts of offences, which I'll speak to briefly in a moment. But it also creates new offences relating to websites and online platforms, new maximum penalties, it deals with presumption against bail, designed to detain more serious offenders in custody, and it also implements recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, designed to protect vulnerable witnesses. But the central reason for the bill and perhaps its most important part is the fact that 39 per cent of child sex offenders convicted of Commonwealth offences last financial year did not spend a single day in jail. That is why this bill squarely is aimed at sentencing.
I will provide the House with one example. This is of a 24-year-old man from New South Wales, previously convicted of eight child sex offences and listed on a child protection register, who reoffended and was convicted of a further 14 preparatory child sex offences, some involving boys as young as 10, and was given a total head sentence of a little over three years. I think everyone in this House would agree that that is not aligned with community expectations. Under this bill, that person would have been subject to a minimum sentence of three and four years for every single one of those additional convictions.
Morrison Government
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (14:58): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the government agree that it owes all Australians, including Centrelink recipients, a duty of care to behave lawfully?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:59): The government, of course, in all of its activities, seeks to do those in a lawful manner. That is the responsibility of every citizen, let alone every government, and that is what the government will always endeavour to do. Where we have advice and where matters indicate, as has been the case in relation to the use of income averaging as the sole determinant of raising a debt, then obviously government practices change. I simply just note again that this is a practice that has been in place over at least two governments, that elected in 2013, until now, and the previous Labor government, which applied the same practice.
Child Abuse
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the actions that the Morrison government is taking to protect Australian children from online predators? Is the minister aware of any recent trends?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (15:00): I thank the honourable member for his question. This is an incredibly important topic, and he is certainly very supportive, like all members in the House, of the work the government is doing in this regard at the moment. I, like other members of the NSC and the frontbench, have had some very confronting briefings over the course of the last couple of months in relation to COVID-19 and the way in which that was predicted to impact on our nation. One of the most confronting briefings that I have had was in relation to advice from the Australian Federal Police about online forums, which have crashed, in some cases, due to the increased volume and traffic on those websites over the course of the last couple of months. That means that more Australians, more individuals, have been part of these forums which have been involved in sharing images of children, including children as young as toddlers, being sexually abused, raped. The sheer volume that we're now dealing with, given the prolific nature of the images that are available to these offenders, to share right across the world, is quite startling.
It even more confronting when the police say that both of their hands are tied behind their back, when they can't act, because the images or the messages are encrypted. Encryption is an incredibly important thing, because we need to make sure that, when we're banking or we're exchanging necessary information, perhaps of a security nature, that information can't be hacked. But the reality is that, when that technology is used by criminal syndicates, by people on the dark web and by those people who are physically abusing young children and toddlers, then we need to act, and the government is in the process of doing that.
I provided the House with an update yesterday in relation to Operation Arkstone, but I want to provide the House with a further update in relation to Operation WALWA, which has been really impressive work by the Australian Federal Police and all of our agencies within the Home Affairs portfolio as well as our state and territory counterparts. In this operation, our law enforcement agencies here worked with the United States Homeland Security investigations to charge 16 Australians with 738 child abuse offences, and, most importantly, they were involved in the rescue of four Australian children.
It is evidence of our need to keep talking about this very unsavoury topic. It's a very difficult topic, a confronting one, and it's hard for parents to comprehend, for any of us to comprehend, the sense of depravity and the level at which these individual perpetrators operate, but we need to talk about it as a nation because there is a lot more that we can do to protect our children. The government, working with the opposition and across the country, will make sure that we take every step necessary to protect Australian children.
Small and Medium Enterprises Export Hubs
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (15:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Ninety-seven per cent of funding in the first round of the Small and Medium Enterprises Export Hubs grants scheme was awarded to coalition electorates just before the last election. Did the Prime Minister approve exports rorts like he approved sports rorts?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:03): I will ask the minister to add to my answer, but I absolutely reject the assertion and allegation just made by the member in the question that he put forward. Once again, the member is putting forward completely untruthful statements, and he has a habit of making untruthful allegations. I'll ask the minister—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just pause for a second. I'm trying to hear the Prime Minister. The member for McMahon, the member for Whitlam and others will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON: The assertion that the member made regarding me—the assertion against my character—is completely rejected, and I think it reflects badly on the member for making that assertion. I ask the minister to add to the answer.
Mr Bowen interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon will leave under 94(a).
The member for McMahon then left the chamber.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (15:04): I'm very happy to add to the answer to this question and I'm happy to assist the member in his understanding of the program, because he clearly does not understand how this particular program works. The name of this program is the SME Export Hubs, and that's probably an indication of how it operates; it is a hub, which means that it services an entire region. So the assertion that the member is making clearly demonstrates a very limited understanding of the program. The SME Export Hubs don't just help those businesses located just next door to them; they actually assist a number of businesses across wide regions. A clear example that I'd like to put to the House—and this might also assist the member with his understanding—is that in South Australia we have Food South Australia. They received a grant to establish a hub in round 1, and they are explicitly offering to assist all businesses across South Australia. Let's be clear: it is based in a location, but it provides support right across South Australia.
I would also like to take the opportunity to point out that this is a competitive grants program. All applicants provided evidence of how they met the criteria through a two-stage application process. They were independently assessed. I'll just finish on this point: for both funding rounds, I, as the minister, accepted the advice and recommendations of the committee without change.
The SPEAKER: Is the member for Gorton seeking to table a document?
Mr Brendan O'Connor: I am, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the table that shows the 97 per cent of funding that went to coalition electorates in the first round before the last election.
Leave not granted.
Australian Bushfires
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (15:07): My question today is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. The question to the minister is: will he outline how the Morrison government is supporting individuals and communities through their recovery from the 'black summer' bushfires, including mental health support measures for the first responders who were on the front line?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (15:07): While, rightfully the nation's attention has been on COVID-19 and our response, the government's focus has continued to be on those communities and those individuals that have been impacted by the 'black summer' fires this year. Our initial support and relief to those people now totals nearly $240 million—that was $1,000 per adult, and we doubled it from $400 to $800 per child—to give people the dignity and respect they needed straight after this event and to let them breathe and get some space and understanding of what had just happened to them.
We made an initial commitment of $2 billion in a relief and recovery fund, and we estimated that we'd spend around $500 million of that by 30 June this year. I'm pleased to advise the House that in fact we have spent, as of today, $530 million of that. It's come out of our pocket and been put into the pockets of those who need it most. Our new estimate is that we will expend $1 billion of that $2 billion by 30 June, putting it into the pockets of those people and communities that need it to help them recover. That's an important aspect of making sure that we expedite this and rebuild the lives of those people who have been touched by this.
Our local economic recovery plans will start in the next three to four weeks. We said that this should be not a Canberra-led recovery but a locally led recovery, and we'll be empowering those communities to rebuild themselves in the way that they want and to rebuild themselves better. That's what government should do: get out of their lives as best it can.
As part of that $2 billion, we've committed $100 million into mental health, to a mental health program for those that have been impacted. But also today—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr LITTLEPROUD: This is a serious issue. With all due respect, this is about mental health and the wellbeing of those people that went through the trauma of one of our worst fire events. I find it abhorrent that you would sit here and interject during this answer, absolutely abhorrent.
Today we carved out $11½ million for those first responders, those brave men and women who aren't sitting here, who are actually out there fighting the fires and actually trying to protect our lives and to protect the homes of Australians who were facing one of the worst natural disasters we have seen. So it's important we understand that their unique recovery, their healing, is separate. We're saying to them that we're going to empower Black Dog Institute of Australia and Fordham Australia—a great organisation that has currency with our first responders, those men and women who put their lives on the line for us. We're going to look at how we help them heal and make sure we work with the states to put in place a better PTSD recovery model for all first-responders across this country. We should be damned proud of these Australians, ordinary Australians who did extraordinary things for our nation. We should never forget what they've done.
Mr Morrison: On that note, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. And on a Prime Minister's and father's indulgence, many of us in this place have missed many birthdays of our children. That is one of the things that we all deeply regret. On this occasion it is my daughter Lily's 11th birthday. I just want to say: happy birthday, Lily!
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:11): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Report
The SPEAKER (15:11): I present report No. 16 of the Selection Committee, relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday, 15 June 2020 and the consideration of bills. The report will be printed in the Hansard for today and the committee's determinations will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.
The report read as follows—
Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business and consideration of bills introduced 10 June 2020 to 12 June 2020
1. The committee met in private session on Thursday, 11 June 2020.
2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified and private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 15 June 2020, as follows:
Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)
COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS
Presentation and statements
1 STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE
Inquiry into the practices and procedures relating to question time.
The Committee determined that statements may be made — all statements to conclude by 10.15 am.
Speech time limits —
Mr Vasta —5minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
2 JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON MIGRATION
Inquiry into migration in regional Australia.
The Committee determined that statements may be made — all statements to conclude by 10.25 am.
Speech time limits —
Mr Leeser —5minutes.
Next Member speaking —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
3 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 40 th General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in Bangkok, Thailand, and to the Philippines and Malaysia.
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10.30 am
Speech time limits —
Mr Hogan —5minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
4 JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
Report 481, Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inquiry into Auditor-General ' s Reports 25, 29, 38, 42, 44, 45 and 51 (2018-19).
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10.40 am.
Speech time limits —
Mrs Wicks —5minutes.
Next Member speaking —5 minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]
5 JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON AUSTRALIA'S FAMILY LAW SYSTEM
Update on the activities of the committee.
The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — all statements to conclude by 10.45 am.
Speech time limits —
Mr K. J. Andrews —5minutes.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR BANDT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes. (Fair Work Amendment (One in, All in) Bill 2020)
(Notice given 10 June 2020.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
2 MR WILKIE: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013, and for related purposes. (Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Amendment (Sustainable Procurement Principles) Bill 2020)
(Notice given 10 June 2020.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
3 MR PERRETT: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Family Law Act 1975, and for related purposes. (Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020)
(Notice given 2 March 2020.)
Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes — pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.
4 MR B. K. MITCHELL: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) in 2019 the independent 11-member Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal did unanimously recommend that the extraordinary bravery of Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean should be recognised with the posthumous awarding of the Victoria Cross; and
(b) the Government rejected the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal's unanimous recommendation; and
(2) calls on the Prime Minister to take immediate action to reverse the Government's rejection of the tribunal's recommendation, and take the actions necessary to progress the tribunal's recommendation.
(Notice given 10 June 2020.)
Time allotted —25minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr B. K. Mitchell —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 5 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
5 MRS MCINTOSH: To move—That this House:
(1) acknowledges that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the Commonwealth of Australia and the United States of America;
(2) recognises the diplomatic relationship is the foundation of the broader strategic, defence and economic partnerships between Australia and the United States;
(3) acknowledges:
(a) the significance of the recent state dinner between President Trump and Prime Minister Morrison on 20 September 2019; and
(b) the appointment of United States Ambassador to Australia, Mr Arthur Culvahouse Jnr, on 19 February 2019;
(4) encourages that the anniversary be a reaffirmation of our shared commitment to promote and uphold democratic values, freedoms and the rule of law at home and abroad;
(5) further acknowledges that a strong, bilateral relationship is vital for our continued shared economic prosperity and national security, as Australia and the United States:
(a) face increasingly complex and frequent threats that aim to undermine the integrity of democratic institutions and national sovereignty; and
(b) share the benefits of a robust trade and investment relationship valued at US $1.1 trillion that creates and sustains jobs; and
(6) commemorates the bravery, service and sacrifice of United States firefighters Captain Ian H McBeth, First Officer Paul Clyde Hudson, and Flight Engineer Rick A DeMorgan Jr who tragically lost their lives while fighting bushfires in the Snowy Monaro area, New South Wales, on 23 January 2020.
(Notice given 2 March 2020.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 12 noon
Speech time limits —
Mrs McIntosh —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue at a later hour.
Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 1.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices
1 MR GILES: To move—That this House:
(1) recognises:
(a) the significant contribution made by Chinese-Australians to Australia;
(b) that all people in Australia, regardless of their ethnicity, cultural or religious background, deserve to be respected in our society;
(c) that Australia is the most successful multicultural society in the world and that Australia is strengthened by our diversity; and
(d) the important role our multicultural communities have played in stopping the spread of the coronavirus;
(2) notes that the COVID-19 crisis has seen a number of appalling racist attacks on Chinese-Australians;
(3) condemns these shocking racist attacks; and
(4) supports promoting a zero tolerance approach to racism in Australia.
(Notice given 10 June 2020.)
Time allotted —40minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Giles —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
2 MR RAMSEY: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that there are:
(a) 1.3 million Australians with diabetes registered on the National Diabetes Services Scheme, with over 280 new people diagnosed and registered each day and an estimated 500,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes which remain undiagnosed; and
(b) an estimated 2 million Australians with pre-diabetes and at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the next 5-10 years;
(2) acknowledges:
(a) diabetes is a complex metabolic disorder, which if not diagnosed early and treated well may lead to serious health complications such as blindness, limb amputation, heart disease and stroke, and kidney disease; and
(b) the Government's long standing commitment to improving the treatment and care of people with diabetes through establishing the Australian National Diabetes Strategy, the roll out of continuous glucose monitors and flash monitors to children, young adults, health care card holders and women with type 1 diabetes who are pregnant, while noting the need for all type 1 diabetics to have affordable access to this important technology, as well as the recently launched Diabetes in Schools program, the KeepSight program, and programs to prevent diabetes related amputations;
(3) congratulates Australian of the Year 2020, Dr James Muecke AM for his work as an ophthalmologist working in many poor and developing nations, and for raising public awareness of the need to prevent type 2 diabetes through encouraging healthier lifestyles and healthier environments; and
(4) calls on all state and federal governments to re-commit to a refreshed Australian National Diabetes Strategy and to fund and develop a national diabetes prevention program.
(Notice given 2 March 2020.)
Time allotted —40minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Ramsey —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3 MS SHARKIE: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) water is a scarce and highly valuable resource in Australia; and
(b) Australia is prone to droughts and many parts of our country have recently experienced their worst droughts in living memory;
(2) registers its concern that:
(a) foreign entities, some implicitly backed by foreign governments, are substantially increasing their holdings of Australian water rights;
(b) Australian agriculturalists are increasingly competing with these foreign entities to secure the water rights upon which their livelihoods depend; and
(c) the acquisition of water rights is not directly subject to the approval of the Foreign Investment Review Board;
(3) congratulates the Government on committing to reform the legislation governing the Foreign Investment Review Board; and
(4) calls upon the Government to, in those reforms:
(a) ensure that water rights are directly subject to Foreign Investment Review Board approval, independent to the acquisition of agricultural land to which those rights sometimes attach; and
(b) lower the threshold for Foreign Investment Review Board approval for agricultural and water rights to $5 million.
(Notice given 10 June 2020.)
Time allotted —35minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Sharkie —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
4 MR YOUNG: To move—That this House:
(1) commends the Government's Pacific Step-up and its focus on building prosperity across the regions, including by encouraging close links between Australian business and investors with the Pacific;
(2) recognises that the Pacific is part of Australia's family and that we have a special relationship with our Pacific neighbours; and
(3) notes that the significant Australian investment in key infrastructure projects, such as the Coral Sea Cable, is providing positive economic and social opportunities to communities in the Pacific.
(Notice given 2 March 2020.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 1.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mr Young —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Items for Federation Chamber (4.45 pm to 7.30 pm)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Notices—continued
5 MS COLLINS: To move—That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on older Australians, their families, their carers and the aged care workforce;
(b) the valuable contributions made by the more than 360,000 aged care workers who have continued to deliver care and support to older Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic;
(c) all aged care workers play a valuable role to deliver care and support to older Australians in residential and home care;
(d) many aged care workers are low paid and around 87 per cent of them are women;
(e) the Government's decision to exclude a large proportion of aged care workers from receiving the retention bonus;
(f) excluded aged care workers who will not receive the retention bonus include those delivering services under the Commonwealth Home Support Program as well as in-direct care workers in residential aged care facilities including lifestyle and leisure therapists, cleaners, hospitality workers and gardeners;
(g) the exclusion of any aged care worker from receiving the retention bonus is unwarranted and unfair;
(h) on 20 March 2020 the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians issued a media release that stated the retention bonus payment would be 'after tax'; and
(i) on 5 June 2020 the Department of Health's retention bonus guidelines stated the payment would be 'subject to income tax';
(2) conveys its disappointment that the Government made:
(a) a decision to exclude about 40 per cent of aged care workers from receiving the retention bonus; and
(b) a late decision to switch the retention bonus from being after tax to being before tax that will see aged care workers lose hundreds of dollars they were previously promised;
(3) calls on the Government, as a matter of urgency, to reconsider its decision and pay the retention bonus to all aged care workers irrespective of their role or where they work and to explain why it changed the rules around the payment being after tax to the payment now being subject to income tax; and
(4) acknowledges the work all aged care workers undertake each and every day and thanks them for their continued dedication to care and support older Australians in residential and home care.
(Notice given 10 June 2020.)
Time allotted —45minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Collins —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
6 MR THOMPSON: To move—That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the work the Government is doing to address the issue of veteran suicide with the announcement of an independent National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide;
(b) that a new independent National Commissioner will be appointed to identify and investigate suicide amongst Australian Defence Force and veteran population; and
(c) that a new Veteran Family Advocate will be appointed to lead engagement, liaison and advocacy amongst families and will be at the heart of policy and decision making with the Department of Veterans' Affairs; and
(2) recognises mental health and suicide are complex issues, but issues that are everyone's business—families, friends, employers, community organisations, governments and the ex-service community.
(Notice given 3 March 2020.)
Time allotted —40minutes.
Speech time limits —
Mr Thompson —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
7 MS CLAYDON: To move—That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) an effective public service relies on skilled public servants who have fair and equitable conditions of employment and job security;
(b) the Government's arbitrary average staffing level (ASL) policy is:
(i) driving privatisation as it forces agencies to outsource their core functions;
(ii) causing a blowout in spending on contractors, consultants and labour hire; and
(iii) leading to a hollowing out of the public service; and
(c) evidence to the Australian Public Service (APS) Review indicates that contractors cost 40 per cent more than permanent APS employees;
(2) notes that:
(a) the Australian National Audit Office Information Report No 19 of 2017-18, Australian Government Procurement Contract Reporting, indicates that in 2016‑17:
(i) Government spending on consultants was close to $700 million, up from around $380 million in 2013; and
(ii) 'the big four' had 1,617 consultancy contracts worth $502.1 million since 2012‑13;
(b) more than $400 million has been spent on privatising Department of Human Services call centres, including a $135 million contract for Stellar Asia Pacific, $132 million to Concentrix Services, $120 million to Datacom Connect and $36 million to Serco Citizen Services;
(c) the National Disability Insurance Agency:
(i) recorded a 600 per cent increase in consultants and contractors over two years—from $70 million in 2016 to $430 million in 2018; and
(ii) has previously stated its staffing levels would be 10,595 staff in 2018-2019—this is now capped at 3,230 in the 2019‑20 budget with core functions such as local area coordinators outsourced; and
(d) the Government's billion dollar plan to privatise Australia's visa system will lead to increased visa costs, data and national security risks and job losses; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) abolish the arbitrary and damaging ASL policy;
(b) ensure that workers doing the same job get the same pay to stop the use of labour hire from undermining the pay and conditions of existing workers; and
(c) end the secrecy on government spending on contractors, consultants and labour hire firms.
(Notice given 15 October 2019.)
Time allotted —40minutes.
Speech time limits —
Ms Claydon —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 8 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Orders of the day
AUSTRALIA-US RELATIONSHIP: Resumption of debate on the motion of Mrs McIntosh—That this House:
(1) acknowledges that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the Commonwealth of Australia and the United States of America;
(2) recognises the diplomatic relationship is the foundation of the broader strategic, defence and economic partnerships between Australia and the United States;
(3) acknowledges:
(a) the significance of the recent state dinner between President Trump and Prime Minister Morrison on 20 September 2019; and
(b) the appointment of United States Ambassador to Australia, Mr Arthur Culvahouse Jnr, on 19 February 2019;
(4) encourages that the anniversary be a reaffirmation of our shared commitment to promote and uphold democratic values, freedoms and the rule of law at home and abroad;
(5) further acknowledges that a strong, bilateral relationship is vital for our continued shared economic prosperity and national security, as Australia and the United States:
(a) face increasingly complex and frequent threats that aim to undermine the integrity of democratic institutions and national sovereignty; and
(b) share the benefits of a robust trade and investment relationship valued at US $1.1 trillion that creates and sustains jobs; and
(6) commemorates the bravery, service and sacrifice of United States firefighters Captain Ian H McBeth, First Officer Paul Clyde Hudson, and Flight Engineer Rick A DeMorgan Jr who tragically lost their lives while fighting bushfires in the Snowy Monaro area, New South Wales, on 23 January 2020.
Time allotted —20minutes.
Speech time limits —
All Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
Notices—continued
8 MR ALEXANDER: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that between 1 and 2 per cent of the Australian population suffers from heart failure, with this proportion higher in Indigenous communities;
(2) acknowledges with concern the rising cost of care for the growing number of Australians with heart failure, including the duration and frequency of hospitalisation, medical management and health complications;
(3) further notes that research from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare states that over 60,000 heart failure hospital admissions, amounting to over 400,000 bed days and a cost to the healthcare system of $3.9 billion are potentially preventable;
(4) welcomes the arrival of proven technologies, including trans catheter mitral valve repair, which have demonstrated transformative improvements in addressing underlying causes of heart failure including functional and degenerative mitral regurgitation;
(5) commends the support given by clinicians, advocates, carers and families of Australians suffering from heart failure;
(6) welcomes with appreciation the announcement of the Government's commitment of $220 million over 10 years for the Cardiovascular Mission under the Medical Research Fund;
(7) acknowledges the Government's commitment to address all forms of heart disease under the National Action Plan for Heart and Stroke;
(8) notes the current consideration by the Medical Services Advisory Committee of transcatheter mitral valve repair; and
(9) calls on the Government to ensure all Australians have early access to proven procedures and technologies, such as transcatheter mitral valve repair, where indicated, to address the rising healthcare burden and premature mortality represented by heart failure.
(Notice given 3 March 2020.)
Time allotted — remaining private Members ' business time prior to 7.30 pm
Speech time limits —
Mr Alexander —5minutes.
Other Members —5 minutes each.
[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]
The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.
3. The committee determined that the following referral of a bill to a committee be made—
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:
Interactive Gambling Amendment (Banning Social Casinos and Other Measures) Bill 2020
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
11 June 2020
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 40 of 2019-20
The SPEAKER (15:12): I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 40 of 2019-20 entitled Advances to the Finance Minister for the period 25 April 2020 to 29 May 2020: Department of Finance.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Pensions and Benefits
The SPEAKER (15:12): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Maribyrnong proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The damage caused by the Government's unlawful income compliance, or 'Robodebt' program.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (15:13): Australians listening to parliament should be aware that this government and its predecessor coalition government have since 2015 been running an unlawful compliance campaign against hundreds of thousands of Australians on Centrelink. The reason why this unlawful scheme is worth the attention not just of the victims of robodebt but of all Australians is that this scheme and the conduct of the current coalition government go to the heart of what drives them. This is a scheme which can be best described as 'the ends justify the means'. The scheme was introduced with much fanfare by the government in 2015 and then again in the 2016 federal election. It was this very Prime Minister who, as Minister for Social Services, said in May 2015: 'We're going to track down people who are not doing the right thing, who are owing money to the government and therefore the taxpayers, and we are going to finally get the money back off them.
In 2016, during the federal election, the government announced:
A re-elected Coalition Government will:
enhance the integrity and compliance of social welfare payments …
They said:
Some welfare recipients make genuine mistakes—
but—
No one who genuinely needs social welfare … and who is honestly disclosing their employment income … will be worse off under our commitment.
Never have words never been so true.
Fast forward to 2019. This robodebt scheme has been around for four years. Labor MPs, probably even coalition MPs, community groups, advocates and individuals received notices of debts raised by the Commonwealth, many of them unfair; they simply weren't owed by the recipients to the Commonwealth. But this didn't stop the Commonwealth extrapolating their wages information and saying, 'Because the tax office says that over a year you theoretically earned X dollars, therefore you weren't eligible for Y dollars in a given fortnight.' This is at the core of what was wrong about the scheme. There is currently no Commonwealth law on the statute books which authorises the government to rely upon a single data point and then issue a letter of demand against its citizens. That law does not exist. It is unlawful.
This government tried to do what it normally does when it gets caught out: say, 'Well, Labor did it first.' This is not true. There's no doubt that income-tracking data can help raise a red flag to say, 'Is there an issue here?' But what you would then do normally, and what respectable conservative and Labor governments did up to 2015, is say, 'If there's a red flag, if the data shows an anomaly, we will get a trained professional in Centrelink to go and check the data.' But this government saw the human part of the human services component as irrelevant. They were so greedy to chase and prop up false budget surpluses that they saw vulnerable Australians and said, 'Righto, we think we can get away with picking on the poorest and most vulnerable in Australia, and no-one will notice.' Unfortunately for this government, a senior member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Terry Carney, made a decision on 8 March 2017 that the government couldn't rely on just extrapolating a single data point. He didn't make that decision only on 8 March 2017; he made it again in another matter on 20 April 2017, and again on 25 August 2017, and in two cases on 7 September 2017. The independent review tribunal for the Social Security Act said that this scheme was unlawful.
Today I listened to the Prime Minister cry what I have to say were crocodile tears, saying: 'Well, I'm sorry. Of course we only ever want to do what's lawful.' But this government has known for over three years, through a decision of the independent review tribunal, that this scheme was unlawful. Maybe the government doesn't agree with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but it has options. It can either accept what the AAT says and change its practices, which it didn't do, or it can say, 'We don't agree with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's finding that it's unlawful, and we will appeal it,' which it didn't do either.
This is a government for whom the end justifies the means. They calculated: 'We will take a proportion, and just settle up matters. If people have the capacity to complain, get to lawyers, get to advocates, get to MPs and complain, we will settle them up. But we are going to keep doing the measure which is unlawful.' So for three years they continued doing something that they knew wasn't lawful. This is really where the government's culpability needs to be explored.
On the Social Security Act, the government says there's no duty of care to social security recipients. What it has to do, if it says there's no duty of care, is say: 'The review process can be relied upon. That's why they don't need a duty of care.' But this government ignored the review process and also failed to deliver a duty of care to the people upon whom this government relies to actually do the right thing.
This is the heart of the robodebt scandal. It caused countless grief. We MPs, advocates and individuals saw the trauma. When the government of Australia issues you a legal demand saying, 'You owe us money', that is confronting. Some people just paid up—as you would. But other people are vulnerable. There were students who, with a debt, couldn't get a job. There were people who wanted to go overseas but could not fly overseas because the Commonwealth said, 'You can't go until you pay your debt.' There are people who are vulnerable. I agree with the minister on people with mental illness: there are lots of things that can trigger it, and it is a complex matter. But I can't agree with the minister that he can conclude, therefore, that because mental illness is a complex matter this robodebt didn't have a triggering effect on vulnerable people. There was psychological trauma.
The government says, 'Please tell us if there are problems.' They were told for years. They were told on A Current Affair last night. We have spoken to families who believe that the robodebt letter of demand and the process triggered self-harm and worse. These are real matters caused from a government's unlawful actions. We have seen the gradual retreat back. The government said in November of last year, 'Hmm, we will make a refinement to robodebt.' It's not a refinement, Minister. When you are doing something unlawful and then you choose to be lawful, that is more than a refinement; that's not a simple jump to the left or hop to the right. You've decided to obey the law which you were tasked with managing in the first place.
In this government there's been a parade of human services ministers over the time and social security ministers—too many to remember, but we will. The point about it is: if they knew that it was unlawful, why didn't they act? Why didn't they take a step? If it was unlawful, why didn't they check in the first place? Why didn't they ask the basic questions: is this lawful? Can we do this? The AAT, the only protection at law for Centrelink and social security recipients said, 'Stop. You must look at this.' The AAT is the only mechanism which people have had up to the class action, up to the Victorian Legal Aid Commission running its groundbreaking case in 2019. That was the only protection people had.
The government are so cynical, so sure that they could just settle up matters quietly. They are so cynical that they just ignored their own watchdog. The watchdog had no teeth. They just ignored it. If there were some people who had the wherewithal to complain and were lucky enough to have the resources, they just paid them off. This was a very mercenary calculus. This was a very arbitrary exercise in crude and thuggish stand-over fundraising by the government on the most vulnerable Australians. This government knew what they were doing was wrong. Even now they still seek to justify and delay and prevaricate. They knew in March 2017. The minister was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, his fingernail marks on the marble of the Federal Court, saying, 'In 2019, we're going to pause.'
Since 19 November last year to 29 May this year, the government have held on to $721 million of unjustly and rich money. They're still collecting the interest on the money, money they haven't been entitled to for 4½ years. Why did it take them from November to May of this year to decide to refund? The plot thickens. We know from leaks which were given to The Guardian—excellent sources, The Guardian had in this case—that the government was considering what to do in February. This government has unjustly enriched itself at the expense of the poorest people. What we need to recognise here is this is a scandal. The greatest shame of all is we don't know how much it will cost taxpayers and we can't even find out who's responsible but, be sure, we will. (Time expired)
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services ) (15:23): We have heard Labor's hyperbole and it's now time to hear the facts. Income averaging has been a longstanding practice of successive governments, going back decades, to support the raising of social welfare debts. It is important to remember this is a practice implemented and used by the Labor Party when in government.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Mr ROBERT: I am coming for you, Member for Sydney; you just wait! It's also a practice that is accepted as appropriate and lawful for the AAT in numerous cases, as recently as 2019, and when the previous Labor government used those methods. Indeed, from 2007-08, when Labor came to power, a program was called—amongst many things—the 'pay-as-you-go debt scheme'. Labor in government started to put together a range of collection methods using income averaging. In the 2008-09 budget, Wayne Swan's first budget, Labor included the following paragraph:
The Government will increase the number of assessments of people receiving payments through Centrelink, where data-matching with the Australian Taxation Office suggests the need for such a review. The reviews will seek to identify people who have failed to declare, or may have under-declared, income or assets to Centrelink. This measure will reduce overpayments and will lead to the recovery of amounts already incorrectly paid.
… … …
The measure will provide net savings of $589.2 million …
The 2008-09 budget paper goes on to say:
The Government will increase the number of assessments of people receiving payments through Centrelink, where data-matching with the Australian Taxation Office suggests the need for such a review.
I've had the department go back and check the debts raised in two years, on a random sample of 500 per year, firstly in 2009 and then in 2011, when the member for Sydney was the human services minister. In 2009, 16.8 per cent of all debts—and debts in that year were about 22,000—were wholly or partly raised through income averaging. That's 16.8 per cent of debts in 2009, of approximately 20,000 debts, that were insufficiently raised. In 2011, when the member for Sydney was the human services minister, some 25,000 debts were raised, and, based on a random sample of 500 checks, the number of debts raised wholly or partly through income averaging had increased to 24.4 per cent.
We have accepted that income averaging is insufficient to raise a debt, but the point is that this is a longstanding practice and it was sped up and increased by Labor from 2007-08. The member for Sydney presided over 24.4 per cent of debts being raised wholly or partly through income averaging, which goes to explain the press release that the member for Sydney sent out on 29 June 2011. It reads:
A new data matching initiative between Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office is expected to claw back millions of dollars from welfare recipients who have debts with the Australian Government.
Why would you need a data-matching initiative with the ATO? The ATO doesn't produce fortnight-by-fortnight data, which is required for welfare; it produces annualised data. Why would the member for Sydney put out a press release in 2011? Because 24.4 per cent of the debts taken from the sample of debts that that member raised during that year were wholly or partly from income averaging.
Ms Ryan interjecting—
Mr ROBERT: The member for Lalor calls out 'wrong'. These are facts, Member for Lalor. You can yell from the back bleachers all you like, but the bottom line is that the use of income averaging at large scales began in 2007-08 and grew to 16 per cent in 2009 and to 24.4 per cent in 2011. Then the member for Maribyrnong, out here waving his hands and taking hyperbole to a whole new level, in this press release says:
… the tax garnishee process had been carried out manually once a year for the past 15 years and involved a significant amount time … The automation of this process will free up resources …
The Labor Party began the automation of debts using income averaging—fact. That's where it began. The minister at the time was the member for Sydney, and her own press release from 2011 shows that income averaging is not only a longstanding practice and process; it is something that the Labor Party began.
On 15 June 2010, the then Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, the member for McMahon, stated:
It is important that the Government explores different means of debt recovery to ensure that those who have received more money than they are entitled to repay their debt.
Now we know what the different means were. It was income averaging, wasn't it, Labor Party. The Labor Party, all pure and light, is saying, 'Oh, no, income averaging only started under the coalition.' No, it didn't. It's only the coalition that has called out to say income averaging is not sufficient. That begs the question, Member for Sydney: when 24 per cent of the debts raised—
Opposition members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Order! The minister will address the chair with his comments, and the members on my left will lower the level of their interjections, please.
Mr ROBERT: When the member for Sydney commenced debt raising—24 per cent of the debt raised—in 2011, I wonder, Member for Sydney, what advice the member received.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will address the chair with his remarks.
Mr ROBERT: I wonder what advice the minister at the time received. I wonder what input the minister received to start collecting 24 per cent of the debt through income averaging. I wonder what input subsequent ministers in the Labor administration had. It's this government that has taken the point to say that solely using income averaging is insufficient, even though the Labor Party followed this practice throughout all their years in government. Indeed, on 9 May, the then opposition leader, Bill Shorten, stated in response to a question on Labor's support for income compliance: 'We want to make sure that people aren't receiving welfare they're not entitled to. No-one gets a leave pass on that.' Thanks, Member for Maribyrnong.
And yet, the Parliamentary Budget Office's 2019 post-election report of election commitments, released in June 2019, confirmed that the Labor Party had made no provision in its welfare costings for the revision, scaling back or closure of the income compliance program—none at all. Indeed, Labor's social security policies that they brought to the 2019 federal election did not include the reversal of what they're calling robodebt. Labor's own budget plan banked the savings of the income compliance to fund their election commitments. The hypocrisy of those opposite! They started using income averaging at scale, kept it on scale for income averaging through the time of their government, jumped up and down about income compliance and yet, in their own election policy costings for 2019, banked all the savings. The level of hypocrisy does not get any greater than that.
As a government, we take responsibility for upholding the integrity of the welfare system seriously. The income compliance program was developed to make identifying welfare overpayments more efficient. It assisted with reviews where customers didn't respond or fully engage with requests to clarify discrepancy between income reported to Centrelink and that to the ATO. In November last year, I announced that changes were being made to the way debts from welfare payments were raised as part of that program. From that time, debts were no longer raised wholly or partially using average ATO income data—a practice that had been going on since 2007, and a practice that those opposite used extensively. We've announced, from July this year, Services Australia will refund all the payments made on debts—
Ms Ryan interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Lalor! I asked before that members on my left quieten down and interject less. If it keeps going, I'm going to start warning people.
Mr ROBERT: From July this year, Services Australia will refund all repayments made on debts raised wholly or partially using income averaged from ATO data.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (15:33): In May 2015, the now Prime Minister announced the scheme that would become robodebt. I have the media release here with his name on it. Under his new scheme, the Prime Minister said that the government would 'track down suspected welfare fraud and noncompliance'. Those words have not aged well, because instead of tracking down actual welfare fraud and noncompliance, thousands of law-abiding Australians have been falsely accused and treated like criminals by their own government for almost five years.
In 2016, when he was Treasurer, the now Prime Minister joined forces with the now Attorney-General to announce a dramatic expansion of their illegal robodebt scheme. I have a copy of that press release too. Its title is, 'The Coalition's plan for better management of the social welfare system'. I don't think they were trying to be ironic. In it the now Prime Minister promised that no Australian who honestly disclosed their income would be worse off under the expanded robodebt scheme. Those words have not aged well either, because the Prime Minister's illegal robodebt scheme has left many thousands of honest Australians worse off—not just financially worse off; this scheme has destroyed lives, and, in some instances, it may have cost lives. And it took until today for this Liberal government, led by this callous and cowardly Prime Minister—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will withdraw.
Mr DREYFUS: I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker—to offer a partial and qualified apology for foisting this scheme on Australians. The Prime Minister continues to cower behind his false statement that he continued a practice which commenced long before 2015. We had the same false statement repeated just now by the hapless Minister for Government Services. Let me be very clear: this is a false statement. The Prime Minister's illegal robodebt scheme was unprecedented. This Prime Minister started it in 2015. And it was a mistake. It was no accident.
For at least three years, the government has known that the Prime Minister's scheme was illegal. But, instead of fixing it, the government covered it up. On 8 March 2017, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that the robodebt scheme was illegal. The government did not appeal that decision. On 20 April 2017, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal again held that the robodebt scheme was illegal. The government did not appeal that decision. On 25 August 2017 and twice on 7 September 2017, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal again held that the robodebt scheme was illegal. The government did not appeal those decisions either. And those are only the decisions that we know about. The government refuses to tell Labor or the Australian people how many other AAT members have told the government that the robodebt scheme was illegal. They say: 'it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources' to locate that information. How convenient!
According to this government, spending many hundreds of millions of dollars to harass law-abiding Australians over debts they did not owe was a 'reasonable' diversion of resources. According to this government, paying private debt collectors to harass law-abiding Australians over debts they did not owe was a 'reasonable' diversion of resources. Apparently, leaking the personal information of a struggling single mother, including her relationship history, in an effort to smear her because she dared to publicly criticise the robodebt scheme—that was a 'reasonable' diversion of resources. But being upfront with the Australian people about the Prime Minister's illegal robodebt scheme—that would be an 'unreasonable' diversion of resources.
The truth is: the government has known for years that the Prime Minister's robodebt scheme was illegal. The truth is that the government has known for years that the Prime Minister's robodebt scheme was harming Australians. They were told time and time and time again. They covered it up. And now they want everyone to 'move on'.
Well, Labor will not be moving on. We will hold this Prime Minister and his grubby government to account. Australian taxpayers will have to foot the bill for the Prime Minister's $1 billion extortion racket, but it is this Prime Minister and his government who will forever wear the shame. And, no matter how long it takes, they will be held accountable.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (15:38): To those opposite: the minister who spoke earlier has outlined a lot of these issues and what the government is doing to address them. The Prime Minister, in question time, addressed a number of these issues and made particular statements which have been asked for many times.
But the reason that not only this debate but the debate around our social services policy is so important is quite simply that governments of all stripes, regardless of which side of the chamber they are currently on, do take serious responsibility for upholding the integrity of Australia's welfare system. We are serious about holding up the integrity of the welfare system. One of the reasons for that is quite simply that this is $180 billion, every single year, to support Australia's social safety net, and we know that there are over 950,000 Australians that have 1.6 million social welfare debts that total $5.3 billion. This is and has been a very significant part of every budget of every government of every stripe, for many, many years. In fact, the average Australian makes a contribution of some $7,610 of their income to our welfare system. That's just over nine per cent of their earnings, so it is significant. So there must be oversight, and there is oversight, and Australians expect that oversight to continue.
Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien, I know that you know, as my neighbour, as the member for Wide Bay, that our region does it tough. The average income in our region is approximately $33,000 per year. It really is not that high. So one of the important parts of this debate, in my view, is that we outline what the government is doing to ensure that as many people as possible do not need Australia's social welfare system and that we can keep as many people as possible in jobs, particularly in our regional areas, where jobs are difficult to find—and even more so now in the current corona world.
There was a story today from Matt Killoran in The Courier-Mail where he outlines the government's JobKeeper program in a lot of areas in Queensland, including our area, Mr Deputy Speaker. In Bundaberg we currently have 1,604 businesses on JobKeeper, and there are 1,361 in Hervey Bay, 167 in Childers, nine in Torbanlea and 63 in Burrum, for a total of 3,204 businesses on the government's JobKeeper program. This is keeping Australians in work and providing them with an opportunity. Those individuals who are not eligible or otherwise are not getting the JobKeeper payment have the jobseeker payment available. They have that opportunity as well. So this government is doing everything it can in these very difficult circumstances to ensure Australians have the dignity of being able to pay their bills and maintain what they need to, until they can find a job or their business comes back to life in a post-corona environment.
I note that the Treasurer also announced in recent days an extension of the instant asset write-off. I want to congratulate the member for Flynn, Ken O'Dowd. He rang me and he rang the Treasurer and every other minister that I know of, talking about this particular program, because it's important for the businesses in his region. It gives them cash in their pockets. They can write down assets of up to $150,000 that they've purchased, and what that means is that they can help keep more people employed. So this government is doing everything it can in the current corona pandemic to keep Australians employed, engaged and connected to their workplaces. We will come through this. In my own portfolio, we know the resources sector has been a shining light in the economy. It will continue to be that. It will continue to employ Australians. It will continue to grow.
Just in response to those opposite, I say once again that all governments of every stripe have oversight on what is the biggest single area of expenditure for federal governments. It is a significant contribution. It will continue to be so. We are proud, as all individuals in this House are, that we provide a safety net for Australians, but it does need to have oversight. It does need to be monitored.
We continue to make tough decisions. That is going to be the reality of life as we move forward in a post-corona environment. We will continue to create jobs through JobMaker, as the Prime Minister announced at the National Press Club address. Why is JobMaker so important? Why should the Australian people trust us? Because we have done it before. We have made commitments about how many jobs will be delivered by this government, and we have delivered them. We made commitments in 2013, and we have delivered them, and we will continue to do that.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (15:43): I want to start with some figures here today. I want to start with the figure of 370,000 people who were wrongly indebted. There are 470,000 debts, worth $721 million—so far—to be paid back. One of the most important figures of all is that of 2,030 deaths of people after receiving a robodebt notice. The Minister for Government Services—and, with respect, the previous speaker as well—want to come in and argue the merits of collecting overpaid debts and the merits of income compliance. With respect, this MPI is not about the merits of income compliance. This MPI is about those figures, the direct result of the government's damaging scheme known as robodebt, which has since proven to be illegal and unlawful and which, as the Labor members who spoke before me have outlined, is purely and wholly the responsibility of the Minister for Government Services and the Prime Minister.
There are some widely publicised cases—I have reams and reams of newspaper articles here—of people who have lost their lives, of the anxiety, of the fear, of the stress, of the damage that the robodebt scheme caused in people's lives. But I want to talk about the ones in Cowan. I have here 16 cases, and this is a mere snapshot, a tiny, tiny snapshot, of the number of cases that my office in Cowan dealt with involving people who received unlawful debt notices from this government and, in detail, the consequences it had for them, their lives, their livelihoods, their families, their mental health and their wellbeing.
Jordan, 22 years old, is an apprentice who took time off work for a knee operation. He was given a debt of $6,000. It wasn't until his mother came to us and queried his debt that we realised—and it subsequently came to pass—that it was a debt that was wrongly raised. This was after months of stress caused to this young man and his family. There is the story of Joseph, a 75-year-old pensioner, whose son is overseas, but Joseph continues to get debt notices for his son. It's caused him incredible stress. It's just really, really hard to sit with somebody who's received a debt notice, who has terror and fear about what's going to happen to them, who feels like they are being strongarmed and harassed, and who comes to your office and, in tears, speaks to you in detail about the impact that this has had on them. This is not about the merits of debt collection. This is not about the merits of income compliance. It is about those people. If I'm able to pull up 16 cases just like that in Cowan, I'm 100 per cent certain that every member in this House, every member that represents an electorate, could pull up at least 16 cases of people who have come to them.
I will tell you about Pauline, who is not in my electorate but in the electorate above mine, which is held by a very senior member of this government. She got nowhere when she approached his office, so she came to me. Her daughter has Cushing's disease and mental health issues. The robodebt raised against her daughter has taken a huge toll on her physical and mental health. We've helped Pauline to appeal the decision, and we've been successful in that. It just goes to show the lengths to which people have to go under this government, who continue to treat Australians with contempt. (Time expired)
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (15:48): What is clear from this MPI today is that the rehabilitation of the former Leader of the Opposition has a long way to go if the best that he can muster is attacking a method that was good enough for the Labor Party to use when they were themselves in government. It is important to debate Australia's need for a fair and sustainable welfare system. It is one of the core responsibilities of government and it is one that the Morrison government takes incredibly seriously. We must remember that, pre COVID-19, we had the lowest level of welfare dependency in 30 years. Our view is that this should be a safety net, and the most important thing is to get people back in jobs.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr SIMMONDS: I hear the interjections from the Labor members opposite, 'Not now.' Quite right—not now—because guess what we've done? As Australians, we're in trouble through COVID, as businesses had to be shut. This government has stepped up and provided appropriate support for them, and, because of that support, the OECD has ranked us No. 3 in countries that have come through this crisis in the best economic shape. We could only do that because we had a balanced budget and strong economic management before COVID hit. The Labor members could not have done it, because if they were in the same position they would have had $387 billion worth of extra taxes because of the person who has brought this very motion. Labor would have had taxes on tradies' utes, taxes on retirees, taxes on housing. Labor members would not have been in a position to provide the support to Australians that they needed during the COVID crisis.
We have in Australia a $180 billion safety net to support Australians every year. Australians expect us to be strong custodians of that money. It's their money. It's not the government's money; it's the Australian people's money. On average, every Australian puts in $7,610, or nine per cent of their earnings every year to support their fellow Australians. When they reach into their pocket and provide that average of $7,610 for every person, they expect that money to be used responsibly. They expect that, when somebody owes a debt to the Commonwealth, that is followed up in a reasonable and compassionate manner. Every Australian expects that. Labor members have previously expressed that desire, so that is what we will do: be responsible custodians. We will follow up debt where it is owed to the Australian people and the Australian taxpayers. The minister made it clear that the income averaging that was used in this particular scheme was used by Labor themselves to raise 20 per cent of the debts that they themselves chased. The charge of the opposition was simply that this government continued to use the principle that Labor members themselves were using extensively.
Another point is that I really must take umbrage at the member for Cowan's and the Labor MP's overt simplification and politicisation of the terrible issue that is suicide and mental illness in this country to try to score what is obviously a blatant political point. They are trying to conflate two issues: reasonable and responsible debt recovery on behalf of all Australians in order to safeguard our welfare system and our safety net, which is the envy of the world, with the terrible issue of suicide and mental illness. Those who suicide and suffer from mental illness do so for a number of reasons and in a multitude of circumstances, so to simply take one statistic and point over here to robodebt is an absolute nonsense. It's a simplification of the very complicated issue of suicide and mental health. Labor MPs should be ashamed of trying to use that to score a cheap political point when the real issue is about managing the money of Australians appropriately to provide what is a very generous safety net. It is the responsibility of government to manage money on behalf taxpayers. That's something that the Morrison and coalition governments do better than Labor MPs, and they know it. Australians will always trust a coalition government to manage their money more than they will Labor. (Time expired)
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (15:53): It's somewhat galling to sit here and listen to the member for Ryan talk about the ability of the government to manage Australians' money and taxpayers' money when, indeed, it will be taxpayers' money that pays out the class action that this government will have to foot to these people who have been so illegally treated by their own government. As it would turn out, I've got a fair bit of experience in communities that haven't been treated well by their government and who've had to seek a class action to seek redress, but I can talk about that later.
It's also somewhat galling to sit here and listen during question time to the minister for human services—now there is an oxymoron!—talk about sensitivities around robodebt and cautioning the House about grave outcomes when we kept raising the possibilities of what was going on with real people who were coming to our offices. As the member for Cowan said, they were sitting with us and saying: 'I've got a debt from the government. I'm being strongarmed by debt collectors. This is such a terrible situation, and I just don't know how this happened. I didn't do this.' Well, do you know what? They didn't do it. They have been exonerated by the AAT. The fact is that law-abiding citizens were labelled by this government as 'rorters', 'fraudsters' and 'leaners', as I recall. You were going to 'sort them out'. You were going to make sure they paid their fair share. They wouldn't be rorting your wonderful system! Well, it seems as though the system wasn't quite as watertight as you thought.
It's quite interesting: robodebt does sound like something from a sci-fi. The member for Maribyrnong said, 'The government took a step to the left and then a hop to the right'. Well, let me assure you: this was the full horror show bearing out before all of us. It has become the stuff of nightmares, a grim reality that's seen debts raised against people who were informed it was their responsibility to prove the debt didn't exist. More often than not, they didn't even know it had been raised. The last time I checked, Australia was still a democracy and the premise that you are innocent until proven guilty was still something that our legal system relies upon. That didn't happen during this debacle. There was no consultation, there was no compassion, and, for many, there was nowhere to go.
When I saw that number—and, again, the member for Ryan stood there asking how we could conflate the deaths of 2,030 people with robodebt. That information was given during a Senate estimates committee. So, indeed, those links can be drawn. This scheme had a terrible impact on the lives of those 2,030 people but also on all of those others whose lives have been indelibly impacted by this callous disregard and lack of respect.
I find it so interesting that members on the other side stand there and say that they had the queues at Centrelink right down. Unfortunately, now, due to COVID, those queues are going to be right back up. I can tell you: some of those people have never queued for Centrelink in their lives and have never had to deal with a government department. Despite the minister's little jingle last sitting, when he said, 'Just give us a buzz; just give Centrelink a buzz,' I ask: who on earth has ever 'just given Centrelink a buzz' or tried to get onto myGov to try and do this? It's incredibly difficult, because you just can't get through. I bet those people who've joined those queues recently, who may be more adept, in some respects, and may be less tolerant—and some of them are less vulnerable—will not cop what this government gives out in relation to that. So it's just as well that the minister has finally realised the error of this program's ways. I note that mealy-mouthed, Fonzie excuse for an apology by the Prime Minister today. I saw that some news outfits are reporting that he's apologised. I tell you what: if that's an apology, he's got a long way to go on that.
It is indeed just so difficult when you meet people—and I just want to briefly shout out to Sandra and Larry, two people in my electorate. You know your stories. I'm not going to repeat them again in parliament, because I know how traumatic it was for you, but we've worked to help you redress that. This government needs to do the work to redress the terrible robodebt that it brought upon you.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (15:58): I think there's a bit of a point being missed here by those on the other side. Most of the rules, laws and regulations that sit within our modern society are built on the foundations of those that have gone before. We had the shadow Attorney-General in here speaking just before. And, in fact, we know well that, in the law system, so much faith is put in the rulings that were before us. It's called tort law. It's the same, though, with tax law. It's the same with business regulation. It's the same with workplace safety and conditions. It's the same with sporting codes. We don't sit down at the beginning of a football season, throw the rule book out and start again. We actually start with last year's rules, and we amend.
So it was the same with this program of debt recovery. The government sat down at ATO and used the mechanisms that were there before it. The Minister for Government Services has been through that program and delivered all those quotes from the previous ministers, who said, on the establishment of these systems, how tax averaging was going to be used as part of the measuring mechanism. It was exactly the same. What changed was the computerised world—we went electric, we sped up the show, as all government departments should be doing. We've probably been laggards really—when I say 'we', I mean governments generally—in adopting the new technologies and rolling them out. In this case they were rolled out to the debt recovery system, which in turn meant that many more people actually came into contact with it. That's what changed. That's what lifted the tempo. It's what lifted the ire in the community, because there were so many more contacts coming than there had been previously.
The ruling of the Federal Court eventually was that this mechanism was wrong, but we were using an existing mechanism. What was different was the number of contacts and then the amount of debt that was recovered. So it was questioned and taken to court, and the court made that ruling. There are a lot of other instances of this kind of thing, and this House should be very aware of a quite recent one that springs to mind with me. It involved section 44 of the Constitution, where the system was alerted and a case was taken to court questioning a member's right to be sitting in this place, by dint of their nationality. They were found to be in default. The fact that there were quite a number from each side of this place would suggest that this was a ruling that was just ignored or was in the background or people weren't paying attention. It was accepted practice. But, when it was pointed out, things had to change. They changed dramatically. We had a number of by-elections. Well, so it is with the debt recovery system. When it was pointed out, things had to change, and we've made changes.
Yes, of course it's been proved to be now an illegal system on which to assess this kind of debt in the first place, but it was based on the foundations of what had gone before. Governments of course have a responsibility. We're spending $180 billion a year on social services, on welfare support. It is around 40 per cent of the national budget. We can't just give money away willy-nilly and never actually police that. We have to find out that people are entitled to it. We know we have $5.3 billion outstanding in debt at the moment. What would others suggest—that we just ignore that? Of course we have to keep going. We'll have to redesign the system and use new mechanisms, but don't think that we're going to sit down and not actually chase down moneys that are owed to the taxpayers of Australia because they've been come by by mistake, sometimes by intention. It is our job. It is the job of whoever sits on this side of the House to ensure that taxpayers' money is looked after, that it's spent wisely, that it's not wasted, that it's not taken illegally. So we will continue to pursue overpayments. We will continue to pursue those who have taken from the system wrongfully. We will have to use a slightly different system. We understand that. For those who have been picked up wrongly, that is wrong, but some of those who were picked up will have been in the wrong as well. (Time expired)
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (16:03): This government has no idea when it comes to the harm to individuals caused by this public policy failure. During the last few months of pandemic and bushfires, we've seen more than a few failures—the failures in the childcare package, the failures in the JobKeeper program, the failure to support our university sector, and the list goes on and on. Today we stand here talking about the doozy of them all, the mother of all stuff-ups—robodebt. Robodebt wasn't a mistake. It wasn't the result of something being imposed on the government by an emergency or a pandemic. Believe it or not, it was actually planned over a long time and it was something they had a pretty good idea was illegal. They issued debt notices at the rate of 20,000 a week, but every one without human oversight.
Robodebt is in a league of its own. If it were the Olympics it would be the performance scoring the perfect 10; it would be the Nadia Comaneci of illegal administrative blunders. But, unlike Nadia, our government has come crashing through the floor—to the tune of $721 million to be paid to 370,000 clients. The actual debt levied is about $2.1 billion since 2015, and up to $1.5 billion may need to be paid back. This saga has caused misery and stress for thousands of Australians who feel like they're being bullied and treated like criminals. I'm not surprised they're continuing with the class action against the government. They have my whole-hearted support. And how coincidental it was that, in the last sitting week in May, this government moved to refer the class action industry to a parliamentary inquiry despite the fact that law reform bodies have all examined it and found there is little wrong.
Talking about misery and stress, Department of Human Services data shows that 2,030 people have died after receiving robodebt demands. Nearly one-third of these people were classified as vulnerable. At least some of those deaths were caused directly because of those demands. People were tipped over the edge by robodebt letters—people like the 19-year-old single mother who took her life after receiving a $9,000 debt; Rhys Cauzzo, a 28-year-old florist and musician who took his own life on Australia Day 2018 after receiving an $18,000 debt notice; and 22-year-old Jarrad Madgwick, who told his mum he received a $2,000 debt letter and two days later his body was found. They each left clear evidence that the debt demands were instrumental in their actions. These are the human faces of a government-made disaster.
This government was warned about the illegality of robodebt as early as March 2017. They received advice from the Solicitor-General in September, according to documents filed in the class action, and the ATO was certainly advised in November, by the bureaucracy, that the scheme was unlawful. But it took the brave Deanna Amato, with the support of legal aid, to win a Federal Court decision late last year to make the government stop raising debts using averaged ATO income data. But between then and now the government didn't pay back the money to victims. Victims are still waiting. The government didn't apologise for the hurt and stress robodebt has caused, despite the head of Gordon Legal saying that no apology would be used against the government in future legal proceedings. Remember, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, both former ministers for social services, were key architects of robodebt. Minister Robert isn't the only villain in this tragedy. They should all apologise fully, and publicly, to all robodebt victims.
But what has the government learned? Nothing. Firstly, according to the minister, the millions of dollars in refund administration costs is going to come from existing department resources. That means literally that, in using internal resources to repay some welfare recipients, they are going to punish many other recipients—with worse response times and worse services over the months to come. Secondly, according to media reports, the government has failed to rule out legislation to legalise the averaging of tax office income data for future debt recovery. There should be an independent inquiry, a royal commission into this disgraceful saga. May it never, never be allowed to happen again.
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (16:08): When it comes to their hard-earned income and tax, Australians rightly expect the government will spend their money responsibly. Given that Services Australia makes $180 billion worth of payments a year, it's reasonable to expect that the government will work to ensure that this money is spent diligently and that overpayments are prevented and recovered. Currently, over 950,000 Australians have social welfare debts totalling $5.3 billion. Not only does the government have obligations to taxpayers it represents; it also has a legal obligation to pursue recovery of these debts. For this reason, debt recovery processes have been a feature of Australia's welfare system for over 30 years through successive governments—Labor and Liberal alike. The Income Compliance Program was developed to make the identification of welfare overpayments more efficient. Income averaging was used in instances where customers did not respond to or fully engage with requests to clarify discrepancies between income earnings reported to Centrelink and the Australian Taxation Office.
This policy was introduced by Labor. When the Minister for Government Services, Stuart Robert, was presented with new information in November last year, he took immediate action to pause all debt recovery activity because of the insufficiency of information surrounding debts raised through the ATO income averaging system. I applaud Minister Robert for acting swiftly and transparently on this matter. From July this year, in good faith, the government will begin repaying debts to affected Australians, acknowledging that income averaging from ATO data was not an accurate enough means of gauging income. Services Australia will progressively refund all repayments made on debts raised wholly or partially using the system since 2015-16. Approximately 470,000 such debts have been identified. Refunding of eligible debts will commence in July, with the majority of refunds completed by November 2020. Refunds will also be will be made on any interest charges and recovery fees paid on related debts. The total value of refunds, including fees and charges, is estimated at $721 million.
Services Australia does tremendous work to assist people facing difficult circumstances and has an extensive network of support providers to care for people in times of crisis and vulnerability. The government does not want people to feel they are in a situation of helplessness and that help is not available. That is why mental health and suicide prevention are and have always been key priorities of this government. The Morrison-McCormack government is continually taking action to help Australians who experience mental health problems, especially throughout the difficult circumstances imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Last month the government announced an additional $48.1 million to support the National Mental Health and Wellbeing Pandemic Response Plan. This investment builds on approximately $500 million for mental health and suicide prevention announced by the government since 30 January, including $64 million for suicide prevention and $74 million for preventive mental health services and a significant proportion of the $669 million telehealth package to support MBS subsidised treatments provided by GPs, psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals—very important in Mallee and other regional centres.
I would like to take this opportunity to highlight the work of Services Australia during the pandemic and the government's actions to effectively double the jobseeker payment via the $550 coronavirus supplement. I know that many people in my electorate of Mallee have benefited from the jobseeker and JobKeeper programs. Data from the Grattan Institute has shown that job losses experienced in Mallee were nearly the highest in Victoria in the month of April. The government's economic response through jobseeker and JobKeeper payments as well as household support payments of $750 have been vital to people that have been affected by the pandemic and have meant that vulnerable Australians have a safety net in this difficult time.
The average Australian makes a contribution of $7,610 of their income to our welfare system, or just over nine per cent of their earnings a year. The Morrison-McCormack government will not lose sight of the fact that Australians contribute more than a month of their working year to support the welfare system. It is important that the government provides the right amount of money to the right people at the right time to ensure the integrity of Australia's welfare system into the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Flexibility Measures) Bill 2020
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
2. Schedules 1 and 2 |
1 July 2020. |
1 July 2020 |
(2) Schedule 2, item 1, page 54 (line 6), omit "1 April 2020", substitute "1 July 2020".
(3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 54 (lines 10 to 14), omit subitem (1), substitute:
(1) The amendments of the PPL Act made by Schedule 1 to this Act do not apply in relation to a claim for parental leave pay for a child made before the commencement day.
(4) Schedule 2, item 2, page 54 (line 16), omit "1 July 2020", substitute "the commencement day".
(5) Schedule 2, item 3, page 55 (lines 16 to 20), omit subitem (1), substitute:
(1) The PPL Act, as amended by Schedule 1 to this Act, applies in relation to a claim for parental leave pay for a child made on or after the commencement day.
(6) Schedule 2, item 3, page 55 (lines 23 to 25), omit "1 July 2020, the amendments of the PPL Act made by the following items of Schedule 1 to this Act are taken, on and after the day on which the child is born,", substitute "the commencement day, the amendments of the PPL Act made by the following items of Schedule 1 to this Act are taken".
(7) Schedule 2, item 3, page 56 (line 5), omit "is born", substitute "was born".
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) (16:14): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ) (16:14): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating members to be supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence.
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) (16:15): by leave—I move:
That Mrs Archer and Dr Martin be appointed as supplementary members of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence.
Question agreed to.
Implementation of the National Redress Scheme
Report
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (16:15): I table a correction to a title to a report that I tabled in the chamber recently. The title of the report should read First interim report of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme April 2020.
Electoral Matters Committee
Report
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:16): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the following reports: Interim report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2019 federal election and matters related thereto—delegation to the International Grand Committee, Dublin, Ireland and Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019, incorporating dissenting reports.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr STEVENS: I move:
That the House take note of the reports.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The debates are adjourned, and the resumption of the debates will be made orders of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:16): I move:
That the orders of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Human Rights Committee
Report
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:16): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 6 of 2020.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr PERRETT: by leave—I'm pleased to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report Human rights scrutiny report: Report 6 of 2020, tabled in the Senate on 20 May 2020. This report contains a technical examination of legislation with Australia's obligations under international human rights law, including a special focus on legislation developed in response to COVID-19. During these challenging times, the committee has continued to meet regularly via teleconference in order to scrutinise legislation. The committee has written to ministers, advising them of the committee's ongoing work, and has reached out to a range of non-government organisations inviting correspondence as to the human rights impact of federal COVID-19 related legislation.
As I've said before, the role of the human rights committee during this unprecedented crisis is even more important. When governments all around the world, including the Australian government, are restricting the freedoms of their citizens, it is crucial that laws designed to restrict those freedoms are thoroughly scrutinised in a bipartisan manner. It is also important that the freedoms and human rights of Australians are returned when these restrictions are no longer necessary. While many of the measures taken to control the entry, establishment or spread of COVID-19 are likely to promote and protect the rights to life and health, they can also limit a number of rights, including freedom of movement, privacy, equality and non-discrimination.
The provision of information as to the proportionality of those limitations is crucial to the committee's work. As such, the committee has advised ministers and heads of departments that it would be appropriate for all legislation related to the COVID-19 pandemic to be accompanied by a detailed statement of compatibility with human rights, even where such a statement is not required under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. It is deeply regrettable, therefore, that, despite this request, instruments dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, which are exempt from disallowance, continue to be tabled without any statement of compatibility with human rights. Given the potential impact of such instruments on human rights, I would urge all ministers to ensure that all further legislation developed in response to COVID-19 includes a detailed statement of compatibility with human rights.
In report 6, the committee sought further information in relation to the privacy protections around the COVIDSafe app as set out in the Privacy Amendment (Public Health Contact Information) Bill 2020. The committee noted this measure, designed to help prevent the spread of COVID-19, may promote the right to health and, by legislating privacy protections, may promote the right to privacy. However, it also appears to limit the right to privacy, as the app provides for the collection, use and disclosure of COVIDSafe app data. As such, the committee has sought information from the minister as to the proportionality of this measure.
In addition, the committee has continued its regular work of scrutinising all legislation unrelated to COVID-19. For example, in this report, the committee has made concluding comments in relation to the Census and Statistics Amendment (Statistical Information) Regulations 2020. This instrument provides for a new question in the census which asks respondents to disclose on the census if they have a diagnosed health condition such as cancer, dementia or a mental health condition. Requiring the provision of sensitive health information limits the right to privacy, particularly noting it is a criminal offence not to provide such information. The committee has drawn its privacy concerns to the attention of the Assistant Treasurer and of the parliament. I commend the committee's report 6 of 2020 to the House.
BILLS
Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020
Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses concerns over deficiencies in the bill, including:
(1) the lack of certainty that the measure will lower payment times;
(2) the light treatment of supply chain financing; and
(3) the ability for businesses to hide extremely long payment times to small businesses".
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (16:22): Whether it's in the building industry or in the broader economy, some larger businesses have for many years exploited the vulnerabilities of those small businesses below them in the contractual chain. These are often mum-and-dad businesses. These small business owners work damn hard to provide for their families and in some cases struggle to keep their heads above water. These small family businesses are not asking for handouts. They just want to be paid the money they are owed for the work they were engaged to do—the work they did in fact perform. The statistics around payment times are very sobering. More than a third of small business invoices are paid after 30 days. These invoices take an average of 63 days to be paid. If all large businesses in Australia paid small businesses in 30 days, $7 billion in working capital would be transferred from large to small businesses, creating a net benefit to the economy of some $313 million each year. Only 80 out of 3,000 large businesses in Australia have signed up to the Business Council of Australia's voluntary supplier payment code in the three years since it began. It is simply not good enough that less than 0.3 per cent of large businesses have acknowledged this is a problem that needs to be addressed.
The Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 requires large businesses and government enterprises with an annual income over $100 million to publish information on how and when they pay small businesses—that is, businesses with a turnover of under $10 million. From 1 January 2021, twice annually, around 3,000 large business will be required to produce a payment times report, including: the shortest and longest standard payment periods offered; the proportion of small business invoices paid in less than 21 days; those paid in between 21 and 30 days, between 31 and 60 days, and more than 60 days; the proportion of all procurement from small business suppliers; and, finally, their use of supply chain financing practices, which often force small businesses to accept a reduced amount if they want to be paid in a reasonable time. The provisions of the bill place a requirement on businesses that are incorporated, or have a physical presence in Australia, or are foreign businesses that carry on an enterprise in Australia that meets the income threshold, plus Commonwealth corporate entities and Commonwealth companies that meet the income threshold. Information from these reports will be made publicly available on a payment-times reports register for searching by small businesses or members of the public.
The new requirements will be supported by a payment-times-reporting small business identification tool to assist corporates in identifying their small business suppliers. The bill establishes a payment-times-reporting regulator to monitor and enforce compliance. The regulator will have powers to obtain and publish information, to investigate and to enforce civil penalties, as well as direct an entity to undertake an audit of their payment practices. Significant penalties will be in place to ensure that large businesses comply with the scheme. Failure to report has a maximum penalty of 60 penalty units for an individual or 300 penalty units for a body corporate. Providing misleading information has a maximum penalty of 350 penalty units for an individual and 0.6 per cent of the total annual income for a body corporate.
Not only will this register shine a very bright light on the shadows of large businesses with poor payment practices, and thereby incentivise them to clean up their act, but small businesses, mum and dad family businesses, will be able to assess the payment performance of a larger business when deciding whether to do business with them. Information is key to small businesses when pricing in the prospect of late payment, and this bill will do just that. Recently, businesses like Rio Tinto and Telstra rapidly abandoned poor payment practices, once they were subject to public exposure. Their payment policies were quickly shortened so suppliers were paid within just 20 days.
Many people might be wondering what the federal government is doing in this regard. The federal government is leading the way, and leading by example, in relation to responsible payment times. Since July 2019, Commonwealth agencies have paid invoices for contracts up to $1 million within 20 calendar days, or they will pay interest on those late payments. This captures 95 per cent of procurement contracts entered into by the Commonwealth. In addition, from 1 January 2020 government agencies capable of e-invoicing have been paying e-invoices valued at up to $1 million within five days. If they don't, they pay interest. Commonwealth agencies will be progressively coming on board with e-invoicing capability throughout 2020. The Commonwealth is also developing a procurement policy where large businesses who tender for government contracts will be required to match the Commonwealth's 20-day payment policy. This is a game changer. The federal government is leading by example and I have no doubt that businesses, particularly those that deal with the federal government, will come on board. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (16:29): Labor welcomes the debate on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and the Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. We do so because we have long advocated for better payment practices to small business suppliers. We welcome these bills as a step in the right direction. From the outset, I emphasise that Labor supports the intent of this legislation as a first step in improving the payment practices of large businesses to their small business suppliers. As my colleagues and I, and indeed our fantastic candidate for Eden-Monaro, Kristy McBain, are all too aware, cash flow and prompt payment times are critical for small businesses.
Imagine you've kicked off your own small business, manufacturing a product, and you score a contract with a mining giant to supply a critical part. You think you've hit the big time. You really think you've struck it lucky. But then that mining giant tells you that it will pay you what it owes in 60 days, and then maybe 90 days, but maybe that can be sped up if you can cut them some slack and trim down the invoice to a more palatable amount. You're out of pocket for the product, the labour and the materials, but they're a much bigger organisation than you. What can you do? You can't get your big first major client offside, but you also can't afford not to be paid. You cop the wait.
Imagine, perhaps, that you're a sole trader, a photographer taking shots for some of the nation's biggest retail chains. You spend hours—days, in fact—preparing, shooting, editing and re-editing the images. You've perhaps said no to smaller jobs in order to get this big one done. Then these retailers tell you that they'll pay you in 90 days or so, and then they say: 'Actually, can we make that 120? Surely you understand COVID is rough and we don't have the cash flow to pay your invoice at the moment.' You feel like you're propping up their ASX listed business at the expense of your own microbusiness, helping keep their heads above water while drowning yourself. But once again you don't have a choice. You don't want to say anything for fear of losing future work from them. You bite your tongue. After all, what they are doing isn't illegal. You're the little guy. You'll just have to wait it out.
The practices of reverse factoring, or pushing out payment times for suppliers, aren't illegal, but perhaps they should be. Small businesses are at the mercy of large ones. Over the last 50 years, there's been a lot of focus on protecting consumers from business but not enough on protecting small, vulnerable businesses from the power imbalance of dealing with large businesses. Small businesses don't have access to the capital and financial options larger companies do. Because of that, their cash flow is easily disrupted, and the experience of COVID-19 has certainly been an additional example of that.
The Payment Times Reporting Bill before us today introduces a new payment-times reporting scheme that requires approximately 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises with an annual turnover of $1 million or more to publicly report biannually on their payment terms and practices for small business suppliers, the objective being the improvement of payment outcomes for small businesses through improved transparency. The government argues that this transparency will help small businesses to make better informed decisions about their potential customers. But, if you're a new manufacturer approaching a mining company who wants your product, are you really going to say no? What choice does a small business really have in who its customers are? If you're a photographer who is looking for some steady work, are you going to turn down a retail chain? Of course not. To put the onus on the small business to decide who their clients will be to achieve a fairness outcome for them is backwards. As I said, small businesses are at the mercy of larger ones, a cog in a supply chain, and are awaiting payment like everyone else.
The bill before us is, unfortunately, purely about reporting. As was noted by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment in its discussion paper on improving business-to-business payment practices:
… it is very hard to establish whether disclosure regimes have any effect.
The government's legislation does not mandate maximum payment times to small business, nor does it provide for penalties or remedies on invoices that are paid late or with payment times greater than 30 days. The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman welcomed the reporting framework as a step in the right direction. However, they note that the belief that small businesses can simply shop around for large business customers is deluded. This legislation, as identified by the regulation impact statement, is nothing more than a ticking-the-box exercise on a Liberal election commitment and an opportunity for that headline-grabbing 'backing small business' slogan. This bill differs little from the Business Council of Australia's current voluntary and unenforceable supplier payment code, a non-binding pledge to pay small businesses within 30 days of invoice. In fact, similar business reporting frameworks were drawn up back in the time of the Gillard government. So once again we see that this Liberal government is rocketing along with reform, just as in so many other areas!
The Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, for example, welcomes the transparency this legislation will bring; however, she also notes that the payment times reporting framework is:
… one piece of the puzzle but it won't solve the problem of late payment times on its own.
Legislation requiring SMEs to be paid in 30 days is the only way to drive meaningful cultural change in business payment performance across the economy.
The EU already requires this, and countries like New Zealand are moving harder and faster to a 20-day payment turnaround. We should be looking to follow in their footsteps. When it comes to supply chain financing, there has been significant conversation about that this year, particularly in the case of reverse factoring, in which contracted payment times are extended, sometimes to 120 days or more from the date of invoicing. In such instances, a large business will push out contracted payment times to smaller suppliers and offer a third-party financier who will pay the invoice earlier on their behalf but at a discount, meaning the small business effectively pays a fee to be paid on time.
Rightfully, supply chain financing has attracted international regulatory scrutiny for obscuring the true debt position of firms using it. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have confirmed they are reviewing arrangements of some large firms' use of reverse factoring for breaching the Australian Consumer Law relating to unfair contract terms, misleading and deceptive conduct and/or unconscionable conduct. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission have also confirmed that they are investigating such arrangements in relation to auditing and financial reporting requirements.
While this bill is a step in the right direction, it's not there yet. We have concerns about its efficacy and many shortcomings, and that's why it should be referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and review. It is Labor's belief that this review should focus on things like the objects clause, making it explicit that it's around motivating large businesses to pay their suppliers in less than 30 days. It should also look at the efficacy of the reporting regime and require reporting to parliament. It should look at the mechanisms to legislatively require large businesses to make payments to small businesses within a prescribed period of time. The EU has done this. Other countries have done this as well, and New Zealand is heading in that direction too. An inquiry can also look into the set-up and proper resourcing of the proposed new regulator under the bill and whether the elements of the proposed extensive use of delegated legislation via minister's rules is appropriate or it should instead be incorporated into the legislation itself.
As I said before, we welcome this legislation. It does represent a step in the right direction. But, as it is now, it falls short, and we look forward to the outcomes of a future inquiry about how yet again we can improve the legislation coming from this government.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (16:37): It's always a pleasure to rise in this place and speak on pieces of legislation that this government is looking to put in place to assist small to medium businesses, because they're the engine room of our economy. According to the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, small business and family enterprises account for almost 98 per cent of businesses, 35 per cent of Australia's gross domestic profit and 44 per cent of Australia's workforce. In my electorate of Forde, we have over 17,000 small and family businesses, and these are the lifeblood of our community and our local economy—businesses such as RAMS Auto Care in Beenleigh; Merino Country in Shailer Park, a terrific local business that uses 100 per cent Aussie merino wool in its products; the GCI Group in Yatala; and many others.
But, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers already in the debate on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020, for small business cash flow is vital. It's the cash flow that allows businesses to pay their suppliers, pay their staff and invest in making their businesses even better. When large businesses are tardy in paying their bills, it causes difficulty for small businesses. The Prime Minister has been very clear on what large businesses need to do, especially in the current environment where we are seeing the effects of COVID-19. They need to, among other things, ensure they pay their bills on time or, preferably, ahead of time.
This bill seeks to implement the government's commitment to require large businesses and government enterprises to report on their small business payment terms and times. Research shows that, in 2017-18, payments from large to small businesses were worth $281 billion, with some $77 billion of these payments paid later than 30 days. When payments were late, the average length of time for a small business to be paid was 63 days. For small businesses this means that they have to carry higher overdrafts, a greater risk for their business, in terms of loss of cash flow.
Delays like this are killers for small business. They hurt cash flow. They harm their ability to hire, invest and grow. We want and need our small businesses to grow and reach their potential. Delays like this often force small businesses to seek alternative, expensive forms of financing in order to sustain their operations. They also affect the ability of small businesses to pay their suppliers. So not only is it the initial small business that is affected. Delays create a ripple effect across our local communities and across the economy. If all large businesses paid their bills to small businesses within 30 days, it would have an overall net benefit to the national economy of some $313 million per year, or around $2.6 billion over 10 years. Now that is a significant benefit and one worthy of pursuit.
It's important that the Commonwealth, as a model business, leads the way in this area. As the Commonwealth government, we have contracts worth around $16.7 billion with small and medium businesses, and it's vital to ensure that we adopt best-practice payment practices. The Commonwealth has already adopted a range of measures to improve payment times, and there would be no point in introducing this legislation if the Commonwealth didn't already show the way.
It's important to note that this legislation doesn't mandate payment times, but this bill does require big business to report on how quickly they say they will pay, as well as when they actually pay their small business suppliers. This will show if big businesses are living up to their payment rhetoric. And that is part of the problem. Often, we hear the rhetoric from big business but the reality is very different. I'm sure many members in this place over the years have had discussions with small business owners in their electorates about the difficulty of getting payments out of large business in a timely manner.
These times will be reported on the Payment Times Reports Register for all to see and judge. People may ask: 'It's fine to have payment times reported on a public register, but what if large businesses breach their stated times?' This bill introduces the Payment Times Reporting Regulator to administer the legislation, monitor compliance and take enforcement action if and when necessary. This regulator will have the ability to impose penalties. This way, we will create cultural change in large businesses to ensure best practice is adopted across our economy.
We've already seen some of the benefits of the approach in the bill shining a light on this bad payment behaviour. Recently, businesses such as Rio Tinto and Telstra rapidly abandoned payment practices which negatively impacted on small business once they were subject to public exposure. As a result of the community concern, their payment policies were shortened to ensure suppliers were paid within 20 days. Locally, I'm pleased to say Teys abattoirs, one of the largest employers, if not the largest employer, in my electorate of Forde, seeks to pay farmers within seven days. So we've seen big business can react quickly to community expectations, and, in the instance I've just mentioned of Telstra and Rio Tinto, we know that this legislation has already had a positive impact. But—and it's important to outline, as I just have in relation to Teys—there are good corporate citizens out there who do do the right thing by their small business suppliers.
The coalition doesn't believe in creating more red tape for business. Hence, there are no mandated time frames for payment. Of course, if the government said payment times must be 30 days, business may well slow payments to 30 days and not pay early, even if they're able to. That would be counterproductive for small business—and the government believes this is not in the national interest—hence the reporting regime coupled with a strong regulator to ensure compliance.
With 17,000 small businesses in Forde, there are some stand-out examples of suppliers to larger businesses. As I mentioned, GCI Group is an innovative company in Yatala that takes advantage of cutting-edge technology to deliver metal fabrication and laser cutting services to some of the biggest companies in Australia, from JJ Richards to Downer Group and Tridiam. Gail, who is the sales manager at GCI Group, tells me that having more awareness and transparency around payment times will greatly assist GCI, especially when it comes to planning and scheduling jobs for clients. I had the pleasure of joining the Prime Minister last year when we visited GCI to see how a small business in Forde is leading the future of manufacturing in Australia. Another prime example is ATP Science in Loganholme, who already supply some of the largest health and nutrition companies in Australia and are seeking to stock their products in major supermarkets. ATP Science have a similar story—having certainty and prompt payment times allows them to plan and invest back into their business to hopefully grow and hire more locals. I'm pleased to say that that's exactly what they're doing with the new factory that they're currently building. These businesses will definitely benefit from this bill and the cultural change that it seeks to engender.
As a coalition government, we believe in small business. We know it's the backbone of our economy. Many of my colleagues on the government benches have run or worked in small business; it's in our DNA. I know the minister is especially passionate about small and family businesses. When she visits my electorate and chats with small business owners and those who work in business, her passion is on full display. You can see that the businesspeople appreciate that we're a government that has their back and gets their concerns.
There are many things that we have been doing throughout this coronavirus pandemic to support small business. In addition to legislation such as this, we can look at a no more perfect example than the JobKeeper program the government initiated as part of our COVID response plan. This program, designed to keep employees in touch with their employers, was taken up by small business and sole traders across the electorate of Forde. We want to see business thrive and prosper. It's through our small to medium businesses striving and prospering that we see the economic development and the jobs. Also, importantly, many of the small to medium businesses are leading innovation in our country. It is why it's critical that we support these businesses to ensure that they get paid on time. As I said at the outset, good cash flow helps these businesses with the things I've outlined above. A predictable cash flow helps business to employ, grow and survive. I know the small to medium businesses across the electorate of Forde, and across the electorates represented in this place, will be keen for the passage of this bill and the cultural change it seeks to drive for the future of all businesses in this country. I wholeheartedly commend this bill, in its unamended form, to the House.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (16:48): The Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 does two really sensible things to support Australian small business: first, it provides greater transparency of payment terms in a bid to improve them for small businesses in the future; second, it helps businesses anticipate cash flow when engaging with larger businesses and government. The bill acknowledges a simple reality that every small-business owner in Australia already knows—small businesses often operate with thin margins and a tight cash flow and therefore are extremely vulnerable when expected revenues fail to arrive. I commend this bill to the House and I will vote in favour. However, I feel compelled to point out a deep inconsistency in the government putting forward this bill after such long delays in providing financial support to people and small businesses after the 'black summer' bushfires we just went through.
Those of us on the ground in bushfire zones knew by the last week of December that we were in the middle of a nightmare bushfire season. By the first week of January, the national parks had all shut, the tourist trade was well and truly dead and huge swathes of my electorate of Indi were on fire, like many places across the country. On 20 January, the Prime Minister announced $50,000 grants to businesses that had been directly hit by fire and $500,000 loans for businesses that had suffered asset or revenue loss. This was very welcome. But there was nothing here for businesses that had lost all their revenue but hadn't been directly touched by flames.
Many businesses in Indi, in places like Bright, Mansfield and the alpine resorts, take a huge portion of their annual income in January, some up to 60 or 70 per cent. This was wiped out. But, after the greatest natural disaster in the country's history, there was nothing for them. It wasn't until 11 March that the government came to the table with support for these businesses, announcing a new $10,000 small business support grant for businesses that had suffered a significant loss of income. The date of 11 March was already some 10 weeks after many of these businesses had lost all of their income. This was welcome; I welcomed it. But it was only made available to businesses in the Towong and Alpine shires in my electorate. The shires of Indigo, Wangaratta and Mansfield, which were jammed right between the burnt areas and devastated by the loss of tourist trade from the fires, were excluded. Some properties in the King Valley, in the rural city of Wangaratta, had even been directly impacted by fire. But still, because of their postcode, they missed out.
This omission was compounded by a refusal to explain why the decision was made. What were the rules? To this day, the government has not explained on what evidence it made the decision to exclude Indigo, Wangaratta and Mansfield. Anyone who'd visited the region would know that excluding these towns was madness. That day, 11 March, I started lobbying the Commonwealth and state governments to fix this oversight. In April, I conducted a survey of small businesses in Indi to understand the impact of our double crises of bushfires and COVID. The results were stark. They showed bushfire affected regions were particularly struggling. On average, businesses had lost 70 per cent of their revenue. A third of businesses had lost all of their revenue. I sent these results to the Treasurer. In fact, I took them there personally, once again imploring him to provide the promise to support small businesses in bushfire recovery.
But it was not until last week, 2 June, that the government finally came to the table and extended the $10,000 grants to all bushfire affected areas in Indi. Again, this was really welcome news. But for many, it was six months too late. The mayor of Indigo shire told me last week that, in the days before this grant was extended, several businesses in Beechworth had shut up shop forever. Two days before the announcement, I visited businesses on the Mansfield high street to hear how the fires had impacted them. Businesses like the Mansfield Hotel had lost their entire summer trade, and this was before they were shut down with COVID.
So this bill appearing before us today puzzles me a little bit. The government clearly understands that small businesses are vulnerable even to small delays in cash flow. And yet the government itself forced businesses to wait for over six months before they could even apply to access support after the bushfires.
I see my role as an Independent to be neither an uncritical cheerleader nor an unrepentant critic of the government. I see my job as being able to celebrate good work where it's done, and there has been plenty of good work done. But I see my job as being able to call out where more work is needed for my constituents. And I fear that the concern for supporting small businesses that is so evident in this bill has not so far been demonstrated adequately in the bushfire recovery.
But the campaign that we began on 11 March, when most of Indi's small businesses were excluded from bushfire support, is now won. These businesses can now apply for this much needed funding. So now we must turn to the next step in supporting small businesses through the challenging months ahead. In the coming weeks and months, I expect the government to provide a bit of payment transparency on three already announced schemes to support small businesses in bushfire affected areas.
On 19 January, the government announced $76 million for tourism for bushfire areas. That will be six months ago next week and there is still little clarity on how that money will be spent. I checked the National Bushfire Recovery Agency website this morning, and I found that just seven per cent of this money has been spent. Moreover, the NBRA website refers to a domestic tourism campaign called Live from Aus, but when I checked the link to Live from Aus I found that the campaign is almost totally unrelated to the bushfires. The campaign features ads, for instance, about brekky bowls with a chef from Bondi Beach, golf courses in the Melbourne bayside suburbs and underwater Great Barrier Reef tours. As far as I know, neither Bondi Beach nor Melbourne's bayside suburbs were hit by bushfires, and whilst we all know that the reef is boiling I truly doubt it was ever on fire. These are all worthy causes, and obviously coronavirus has hit tourism. A tourism push for all of these places is completely worthy, and we should be investing in tourism for all parts of Australia. I've been assured by the NBRA when I have asked them about this specifically: they said, 'No, we're not funding tourism campaigns outside bushfire areas,' but, as I said, I'm looking for transparency, and right now on the NBRA website this is where it takes you—Live from Aus.
When he launched the bushfire tourism scheme the Prime Minister said it would 'tap into the Australian desire to contribute to the bushfire recovery effort by encouraging Aussies to holiday in Australia and provide support to affected communities and regions'. From that perspective, I would expect that all the money put aside for bushfire recovery in tourism should be going to those regions. This bill talks about transparency with payment times, but what about some transparency for getting money to tourism businesses in bushfire regions? I'd really like to see that. I'd like to see the NBRA absolutely trumpeting a domestic tourism campaign focused on bushfire affected communities, places like those in my electorate, places like Beechworth and Mansfield, not Bondi and Brighton.
With the 93 per cent of funding still sitting there, we need a tourism campaign focused on Bega, on Eden, on Batemans Bay, on Mallacoota and of course on the many beautiful towns in Indi that I am so fond of and represent. Part of this money should be going to local tourism bodies to ensure that local ideas can get a guernsey. Tourism North East has developed a pitch for a $750,000 digital commerce platform that would build the resilience of local tourism businesses across Indi by helping them to connect with their customers. This is exactly the type of long-term investment we should be using this tourism money for.
But tourism based small businesses aren't the only ones still waiting for money to materialise. In February I took a proposal to the government to support forestry businesses in the north-east. On 11 May the government announced some money, but they have since provided zero details about how it's going to be spent and where it's going to go. We need transparency; we need detail. On the same day, 11 May, the government announced $448 million for local economic recovery plans, or LERPs, as they're called, for bushfire affected areas. But again there is no detail about which places will get how much funding. It does appear that, yet again, places like Mansfield may miss out on this funding, despite being extremely hard hit by the loss of tourism trade. Again, we're in June now. We need transparency; we need to get on with it.
This bill aims to provide transparency on how quickly government agencies pay small businesses for their services. As I said, I commend the bill, I support it and I will vote for it. But if this test were applied to the bushfire funding I fear that the government would not be receiving a very high mark. So while I commend this bill to the House, I implore the government to get serious about getting bushfire money out the door and to where it's really needed.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (16:59): Before I go into the details of what is a very important piece of legislation for the House today, the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020, I want to start, if I may, by taking a moment to thank all of the hardworking small businesses in my electorate of Ryan. I know I speak for local residents when I say that we were amazed at the way our own local small businesses managed to continue to serve the community throughout the COVID pandemic, when they had been dealt the most difficult of hands. In some cases, they had to entirely close their shopfronts and go virtual. Still, these local businesses adapted and found a way. Our local gyms kept us motivated via online sessions. Our cafes converted to drive-throughs and takeaways. Our healthcare providers used telehealth consultations and provided over-the-phone advice and comfort. I am always amazed, though not surprised, by the fact that our small businesses manage to adapt to whatever circumstances they find themselves in, even ones as difficult as the global pandemic, which came on so quickly. I want to speak directly to those small-business owners in Ryan and say: 'Thank you so much for the way you have risen to the challenge of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic and still found a way, despite all the difficulties, to serve our local community, who are so much in need. We are very much looking forward, as a government, to continuing to have a laser-like focus on creating jobs and getting you and the economy back on track.'
I grew up in a small-business family, as I'm sure many in this chamber did. My parents were running a local pharmacy, and so, from a young age, I learnt that running a business is not a nine-to-five job; you don't just get to clock off and go home. It pervades every part of family life. The lines between work and home are always continuously blurred. So, too, are the concerns, and this is an important point. When stress comes upon small-business owners—mums and dads—it comes upon the whole family, and children often bear that stress as well.
When you sit down and talk with small-business operators and ask them about their concerns, there's always a constant for them, and that is cash flow. Small businesses, if they are successful, monitor and manage cash flow constantly. It's the thing that keeps small-business owners up at night, I find, more than anything else. I certainly have very vivid memories of, after the family dinner was finished and the dishes cleared away, mum and dad spending many, many hours on the accounts at night as we kids were heading off to bed. That's what kept the small business functioning and going.
Small businesses are the most affected when it comes to longer payment terms and late payments, and this has a flow-on effect right across the economy. Small businesses that are continually chasing outstanding payments from suppliers are under significantly increased stress; the whole business is. They're under increased stress to pay employees on time, and they find it difficult to invest back in their business, because they can't get a handle on their cash flow. When they are paid on time, when they're not constantly chasing those payments, they are able to plan for the future. They are able to invest, to hire a new person, to aim to grow their small business. More than a third of small-business invoices are paid after 30 days. I'll say that again: more than a third of small-business invoices are paid after a 30-day period. And those invoices that are paid after 30 days take, on average, 63 days to be paid. How can a small business effectively manage their cash flow—particularly when it's a mum-and-dad family operation—when for 63 days after the point of sale they can't count on the cash appearing in their account? This has a very significant impact, with significant stress on the whole family and missed opportunities for small-business operators to plan and grow and invest in their business.
The commitment in the bill before us today is something that has not just been introduced as the result of a pandemic, though you could argue—and I'm sure that many on our side of the chamber would—that the recent events of COVID-19 have made the importance of this bill even more stark. But it wasn't COVID that brought this on; it was a longstanding commitment that this side of politics made in 2018 as part of our package of ongoing support for and recognition of Australian small businesses.
The Morrison government is a government that delivers on its commitments, and this legislation fulfils that pledge we made to require large businesses and government enterprises with a total income of over $100 million to publish information on how and when they pay small businesses. A culture of longer payment terms is one that the Australian economy simply cannot withstand. We certainly cannot withstand it in the current environment, as small businesses are desperately trying to get back on their feet. This bill will ensure that Australian small businesses will not suffer the flow-on effects of slow invoice payments.
Large businesses, particularly in the current COVID conditions, are the stewards to the supply chain and they need to be aware of the role that they are playing as we look to our recovery phase. The Prime Minister has directly spoken several times to large businesses during COVID, asking them about the need to step up by keeping connections with their employees—keeping their employees in jobs wherever possible by having increased flexibility and supporting small businesses. Payment terms is a fantastic example of how large businesses can support small businesses and support the entire supply chain.
Many have done that. Many large businesses have risen to the challenge. Many have gone above and beyond expectations. Unfortunately, some are still taking longer to pay their bills, and this is cascading through the entire economy. In normal economic conditions, late payments are a constant challenge. In the current economic conditions, late payments could lead to the small business no longer being able to operate. It could literally be the death knell of these small businesses.
The bill we debate today, in its unamended form, will see a requirement for large businesses to submit a payment times report showing the shortest and longest standard payment periods offered; showing the proportion of small business invoices paid between less than 21 days, 21 to 30 days, 31 to 60 days and more than 60 days; as well as showing the proportion of all goods and services procured by the business that was from small business. This increased level of transparency will not only give small business operators a clearer understanding of the customers that they are seeking to engage with but will mean that large businesses that may have been previously dragging their feet in their payments or practising unfair payment terms will seek to do better. We'll ensure that small businesses have reliable information to review when making decisions about who they do business with, providing a level of choice that doesn't currently exist. This information will be available not just for small business but to any member of the public.
Community expectation, now more than ever, is that we all have a part to play in our economy and our recovery. We have some very savvy and switched-on consumers. They want to see everybody in our economy pull their weight to help small business, to help all Australians, get back to work and back into business. I know that Australian customers of a business that is outed as having bad or unethical practices that hurt their suppliers, that they take too long to pay, would be suitably disappointed. In most cases, that customer, that savvy consumer, when provided with that information and that choice, is going to be very quick to seek an alternative company to give their patronage to. Conversely, I know Australians will be seeking to give their business to companies that are doing the right thing by small business, who are paying on time and therefore helping to protect and restore Aussie jobs at a time when we need it most.
We have already seen the benefits of the approach in the bill in shining a light on bad payment behaviour. Recently, businesses such as Rio Tinto and Telstra rapidly abandoned payment practices which negatively impacted on small businesses once they were subjected to the kind of public exposure that would become routine in this bill. As a result of the community concern, their payment policies were shortened to ensure suppliers were paid within 20 days. When big business reacts so quickly to community expectations, as they have in this instance, we know that they will be equally influenced by the payment times reporting scheme contained in this bill.
This is real and lasting reform that shines a light on bad behaviour in order to stop it and, importantly, prevent it. It is helping our economy with transparency, not taxes. We're not burdening the economy further with restrictions and red tape; we're opening the door for businesses to do the right thing—as, frankly, they should be—and to do it in a transparent way so that they are rewarded by consumers for doing the right thing.
The Morrison coalition government is a consultative one, and the legislation before us today in its unamended form is the result of extensive work with industry and representatives from both large and small business. They have a crucial part to play in this process, and they're architects of this solution. I want to particularly pay tribute to Minister Cash for the fantastic work that she and her team have done in undertaking this consultation and bringing this important bill before us.
Of course, it isn't just large businesses that our SMEs deal with; it's government too. So we have also made sure—and all credit to Minister Cash for ensuring this—that we are always doing the right thing by them. Since July 2019, our Commonwealth agencies have paid invoices for contracts of up to $1 million within 20 calendar days or else, quite rightly, paid interest on any late payments. In addition, from the start of this year, e-invoices have been paid within five days and, if they aren't, we pay interest, making it easier to do business with the government.
In talking about this bill, I can't help reflecting on the fact that, as the son of a small-business owner, I know how important this is to small businesses—to make sure that they have security with their suppliers, knowing that they can manage their cash flow and that they can make investment decisions to grow and expand their business and to do what small business does best for our country, which is to create jobs. I'm very pleased to see this government strongly support small business, as I do personally, and I commend the unamended bill to the House.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (17:12): I rise today to speak on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020. I support this legislation both as the member for Warringah, representing 17,000 small businesses whose lives will be improved by the passage of this bill, and as an advocate for transparency and accountability.
Firstly, of course, I would like to thank our local businesses. 2020 has been a challenging year for so many, first with tourism disruption from the bushfires and the smoke that blanketed the Warringah electorate, and then during this coronavirus crisis, where so many businesses have been affected, from those who have had to completely shut down, like cinemas, gyms, restaurants and some retailers, to others who have had to completely adapt their business model. If there's one thing I've seen when out and about in the community—when it's been possible to do that—it has been the resilience of so many of our small businesses and their desire to work so hard to rebuild after this difficult period.
The small businesses in the electorate have told me that they've suffered at the hands of payment terms offered by large businesses. For many, landing a large business as a client is the dream. They imagine income security, regular payments and freedom to innovate to create a more efficient business model. In reality, sadly, sometimes their experiences with large businesses can include not being paid within the contracted period and large businesses using 90-day payment terms or using bankruptcy as a means of not paying debts. Slow payment and nonpayment of small business is a real issue. Cash flow is king for small businesses, and the growth of small businesses is dependent on cash and capital. So, if their largest client is not paying, it can completely constrain their growth and innovation, as more effort is spent chasing payments rather than running their business or searching for improvements and new clients. It puts in jeopardy their ability to employ and to keep growing. Business owners' personal mental health is another casualty due to the stress and impact on personal lives and viability of local small businesses.
The benefits for small business and the economy have been estimated by the AlphaBeta consultancy. They estimated that a normalised 30-day payment time would have a net benefit of over $500 million per year to small business and over $300 million per year to the Australian economy. That is substantial, and certainly something to encourage the government to do more to assist small businesses.
Transparency and accountability are very important to me. I'm an advocate on many fronts for more transparency and accountability throughout our society, throughout government and, in particular, for the operation of business. I support this legislation in strengthening the reporting requirements and empowering small businesses with greater information and choice. It enables individuals to make informed decisions, so improving the transparency, accountability and integrity of large businesses is a win for small-business owners. It will empower small-business owners with the ability to make an informed decision about whether their business can cope with the payment terms offered by that large client. They will be able to plan for slow payments if that is what they are told to expect. One would hope that this transparency will lead, though, to an overall improvement in the payment terms offered by large businesses, as quality small businesses may choose not to engage and take business elsewhere. Further, the transparency and pressure of peers will work to improve payment terms offered. This is where the market will hopefully work its best and encourage competition and encourage better efficiency.
There is, of course, room for improvement, and I encourage the government to push this legislation further to include a maximum payment term for businesses. The Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, and various small business lobby groups, have called for the establishment of a statutory maximum period of, for example, 20 to 30 days. Rather than relying on normalising a 30-day payment time, legislating the payment time would more effectively achieve benefits to the economy and small businesses alike. I hope that there will be further consideration of how this measure and other measures to further assist small businesses can come about. So, whilst this bill is not perfect, it's a vast improvement to the status quo, and I commend the Payment Times Reporting Scheme and support the government with this legislation.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (17:17): I rise to speak on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and the cognate bill and to support the amendment moved by the member for Gorton. The Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020 introduces a new payment times reporting scheme, which requires approximately 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises with annual turnover of $100 million and above to publicly report biannually on their payment terms and practices for their small business suppliers. Some business entities, such as large cooperatives, are exempt from reporting, as are charities and not-for-profits. Entities that fail to maintain payment records or provide false or misleading information in a report may contravene a civil penalty provision. Reporting entities will be given an 18-month penalty-free transition from the implementation date to familiarise themselves with the scheme and transition effectively.
As previous speakers have said, Labor supports the intent of the bill as a first step in improving payment practices of large businesses to their smaller suppliers of goods and services. The bill does not mandate maximum payment times to small businesses and fails to provide penalties on invoices that are paid late or with payment times exceeding 30 days. As every small business in my electorate of Dobell will tell you, cash flow and on-time payment are critical for small businesses. The objective of this scheme is to improve payment outcomes for small businesses by creating transparency around the payment practices of larger businesses. With greater transparency, small businesses will be able to make better choices about their customers.
Concern has been expressed about the detail that is being left to delegated legislation—that is, the minister's rules. Stakeholders want legislative certainty on the design of the scheme, particularly some of the more controversial provisions. The Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman believes the framework is unlikely to significantly change the behaviour of most firms. Kate Carnell said that the Payment Times Reporting Framework is 'one piece of the puzzle, but it won't solve the problem of late payment times on its own'. Further, she said:
Legislation requiring SMEs to be paid in 30 days is the only way to drive meaningful cultural change in business payment performance across the economy.
It's not just Labor raising concerns about supply chain finance solutions. Kate Carnell has launched a review of supply chain finance, saying:
… it is totally unacceptable for big businesses to use supply chain financing arrangements as a replacement for reasonable payment terms being offered, 30 days or less from invoice.
She went on to say:
Third-party financing must not replace reasonable payment terms being offered 30 days or less from invoice and paying to those terms. It is not acceptable for large businesses to use small suppliers to optimise their cash flow.
The Australian Accounting Standards Board is looking into the tiger trap of reverse factoring and will be discussing it further with international accounting standards boards and other relevant regulators. Supply chain financing has attracted international regulatory scrutiny for hiding the true debt positions of firms using it and creating systemic economic risks. Labor is part of an international chorus of voices concerned about supply chain financing arrangements, including rating agencies and international audit firms. The definition of 'supply chain financing' and the reporting requirements are contained in delegated legislation, in the minister's rules. The draft rules only require large entities to report on whether they use supply chain financing, the details of those arrangements and the proportion of invoices paid under such arrangements. The legislation references supply chain finance in passing. Small businesses have no guarantee that a minister may not simply remove the requirement to report on the use of such arrangements.
Labor will refer this bill to the Senate economics legislation committee for a brief inquiry. There are several concerns that need to be examined. A brief inquiry should not stop this from being properly debated and ready to go from the intended starting date of 1 January 2010. As I've said, Labor will support this bill as a first step in improving payment practices. The review should consider that the bill does not have a clear target on where average payment times should fall to and whether this should be a feature of the regime. The Payment Times Reporting Scheme is a transparency initiative to support self-regulation. Self-regulatory regimes are usually 'poor' to 'questionable' unless backed by a genuine threat of heavy-handed regulation.
Labor has concerns that a self-regulatory payment regime will not result in faster average payment times. The Senate committee should explore incentives for larger businesses to improve their payment practices. The procurement linked payment times policy does not have any incentives for large firms who do not seek government contracts. Comparable jurisdictions have implemented or are considering legislated payment times. New Zealand is consulting on legislated 20-day payment times with interest charges for payments over 20 days.
Another concern is that the bill does not require the regulator to publish average or median payment times or representative invoice sizes. The committee should explore whether the regulator must be required to release this data publicly. The committee should explore stakeholder suggestions that the reporting requirements and the definition of supply chain financing in the draft regulations are set in the legislation.
The bill intends to legislate the following brackets for reporting entities to provide information on payments made less than 21 days after the invoice is issued, between 21 and 30 days, between 31 and 60 days and more than 60 days. However, large firms, particularly those using supply chain financing, use contracted payment times of 120 days or more. The top bracket of 60 or more days allows these very long payment times to be hidden. For these reasons it is incumbent on the Senate to review this bill for its efficacy and any shortcomings.
I will turn now to my local economy and how it's been hit by COVID-19. The coast's economy is built on the shoulders of industries typical of coastal regions across Australia, like tourism, hospitality, retail, food manufacturing and construction. We're a proud and hardworking community. There are 9,803 small and family businesses in my community, employing 35,000 local people. There are 2,500 small and family construction businesses; 11,000 tradies; 1,061 small architectural, engineering, accounting and photography firms; and 896 small rental, hiring and real estate agent services. These businesses rely on on-time payments. When a payment is late these businesses are put at risk, a person's livelihood is put at risk.
It's been a tough year across Australia and a particularly tough year on the coast. We faced bushfires and floods before COVID-19 and COVID-19 has had a devastating impact on our local economy. When non-essential services were shut down, the coast felt it hard. On 28 May the Grattan Institute released its 'Job losses caused by COVID-19, electorate by electorate' report. Dobell saw a sharp loss of 5.7 per cent. This was devastating for a region already facing above-average unemployment—in particular, youth unemployment—and underemployment before this crisis hit. Many people have fallen through the cracks of COVID-19 support and are not receiving the help that they need. As I said, I come from a proud and hardworking community. When people are doing it tough, we pull together. I'm proud of the way we've worked together, but there comes a time when proud people need help.
Labor has been calling on the government for weeks to develop a comprehensive housing stimulus plan. As I mentioned, there are 11,000 tradies on the north end of the Central Coast and 2,500 small and family businesses working in the housing and construction sector. We need proper stimulus to kickstart the economy and get these businesses and families back on their feet. Labor has recommended five things that the government could do: construct more social housing; repair and maintain existing social housing; construct more affordable rental accommodation for frontline workers; and provide expansion of the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme for new builds and grants to first home buyers who build their first home. The government's recently announced HomeBuilder package barely ticks one of those boxes. The package was announced with no option to apply, and, as of 10 June, there have been no applications for this grant. The government expects Australians to spend $150,000 on renovations without providing any certainty of whether they'll qualify for the grant. The tradies in Dobell deserve better. The small-business owners in Dobell deserve better. The small-business owners in our community deserve better.
I raise this matter because, during COVID-19, this is legislation that is meant to help and support small businesses. What's the government doing to properly support small businesses across Australia and communities like mine that have been so hard hit by COVID-19? Sadly, we know the link between financial distress and mental anguish and the consequences that can come from that. It'll be a long and bumpy road to recovery in communities like mine, and the government needs to do so much more. The tradies and small businesses in my community deserve better than a housing package that's expected to be taken up by just 7,000 people. Housing construction is due to fall, and the Morrison government has produced a scheme that's difficult to understand and even harder to access. The government must consider investing in social housing so that the tradies and small construction businesses of Dobell aren't lost to our community.
During the COVID-19 crisis, we've heard some shocking examples of large companies telling smaller suppliers that their payment terms are being blown out to 120 days from the date of invoicing. Tradies like my brother Eddie, a plumber on the Central Coast, deserve better than this. Prompt payments are far more important to the cash flow of small businesses than for larger businesses. Small businesses rely far more on payments and bank finance. Without payments, small businesses will suffer. Our community will suffer. The local economy on the Central Coast deserves better. The small businesses on the coast have been through a lot this year, as I mentioned: bushfires, floods, and now COVID-19. They should not have to wait 120 days or more to be paid for their work.
Small businesses are the lifeblood of Australia. They are the foothold of our community. They are run by mums and dads, sisters, brothers and friends—the people who make up our community. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted small businesses across Australia. They have felt it hard. They deserve a fair go and to be paid on time for their work. As I said, Labor supports these bills as a first step towards helping small businesses, but we are still concerned about supply chain finance and the impact it will have on small businesses. I urge the minister to act on supply chain financing and help small businesses to be paid on time.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (17:28): As other speakers on this side of the House have indicated, we support the bills that are before us, the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and the Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, but we have concerns—hence why the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 going to be referred off to a Senate inquiry. We support it as a first step, but I would add that it's actually a really weak step, and I'll outline why in a moment.
For a long time, we have been advocates for better payment practices for small-business suppliers. Just as with wage theft, big businesses who misuse their relationship with small businesses and pay them late do so deliberately. It's become part of their business model. It's an insidious practice that is hurting so many. We see, time and time again, big business taking the little guys for a ride. What was hoped for with these bills was tough legislation, making sure that we had a big stick to actually go after the big guys who are treating so many little guys appallingly. We do not have a big stick. We have a very weak step towards reform that is necessary, particularly in a time like COVID-19 and a recovery.
Talking to local businesses in my area, it is all about cash flow. Businesses have not reopened because of cash flow—businesses not being able to get the numbers that they require to balance the books, businesses that didn't apply for JobKeeper because of cash flow. For businesses, as many people would know if they consulted in their electorate, cash flow is king. It is what allows them to keep trading. It is what is necessary. It ensures that they have the money to pay wages, pay super, pay the rent. After COVID-19, it is something that we need to be acutely aware of. Every piece of legislation that comes before this parliament should have that lens upon it. That is why I say this is a weak step.
This legislation is talking about self-regulation. That's not a big stick. That's not a tough cop. That is not someone who's really going to back in small business. Self-regulation is just window-dressing. It's the suggestion that the big guys are going to do the right thing. Come on! After how many decades, when will the conservatives finally accept that self-regulation is about saying you're doing something when you're not doing anything at all? Self-regulation of an industry that is already behaving badly will not deliver the cultural reform that's required. We do support this bill, because it is a first, little step, but I hope that, between now and when this bill passes, the government listens to the concerns of industry, small businesses and Labor and actually make some real changes to this bill so it can deliver real reform and relief to our small businesses.
Prompt payments to small businesses are far more important to cash flow than to larger businesses. Larger businesses have many different ways to increase capital, whether it be through raising equity, whether it be through bond markets, whether it be through not paying their workers super, which quite often happens. Even wage theft has become part of a model for big businesses in raising capital.
I see those opposite shaking their heads and asking, 'How can this be related?' Well, it is. It has been demonstrated. It has been talked about. The Fair Work Ombudsman talks about how big business these days are using wage theft as a model, deliberately underpaying their workers as a model, and using the capital in other ways. That's why we have been consistently saying there needs to be reform in that space. Maybe in this pandemic we will see the government finally move on wage theft and we'll see a bill come forward, but let's hope it's not more window-dressing like the bill we have before us. Let's hope it's not a self-regulation model like the bill we have before us.
What we are seeing in Australia is large businesses using small businesses as their piggy banks to boost their own working capital position. Even more insidious, what we are seeing is these big businesses going to third-party financiers and saying to little businesses, 'If you want to be paid on time, pay a fee.' Can you believe that? It's hard to believe that that's even legal. It's hard to believe that, when you have reform in front of you, the government hasn't even attempted to crack down on this insidious behaviour that has crept into corporate culture.
I was shocked when I had a small business raise this with me, a construction business in my electorate, someone who supplies building materials into the construction industry. They informed me that they had the option to sign up to this recovery of their invoices and that for a small fee—or what they thought was a big fee; they paid it—they could actually get paid on time. They could sign up to a new payment model. My first question was: how is this legal? After several letters back and forth and after several conversations with people in the tax office, with people in the department, with legal experts, with local lawyers and with even the Fair Work Ombudsman's office, it turned out that it was true. You can actually do that. For companies who deliberately don't pay businesses on time, there is a window that has opened up for this opportunity. What an evil business model. They go out there and prey on small businesses that are desperate to have their invoices paid. Let's just remember that these are businesses who've done the work. They've supplied the goods or supplied the service. They just want to be paid for that, and to get what they're owed they're being asked to pay a fee through these third-party financiers. Can you imagine asking workers to pay a third party—'We're going to take some of your wages so that we can process it.' Can you imagine if that were to be the case? Wait a minute—it is happening in some places. That's what's happening in some places when it comes to JobKeeper. So the government might want to address that one pretty quickly, that we do actually have some employers deducting a fee for processing JobKeeper. Not all employers are bad employers. Not all businesses are bad businesses. But when you have this toxic corporate culture creeping in, the government needs to act. That is where we need the regulation. Not self-regulation, but decent regulation that has real penalties and that stops this culture in its tracks.
This bill, the Payment Times Reporting Bill, introduces a new payment times reporting scheme which requires about 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises with a turnover of over $100 million to publicly report biannually their payment terms and practices for their small-business suppliers. It's a bit like a name and shame. You need to demonstrate that you're doing the right thing. And we all know how successful these schemes have not been in the past. So I'm surprised that the government has said, 'This is our big reform.'
The government argues that, by providing access to this information on large businesses who pay on time, small businesses will be able to make more-informed decisions about their potential customers. We now live in a world where the small business can choose its customers! We now live in a world where, in the building and construction industry, where you have some really major players, the little supplier in my electorate can rock up to Lendlease and say, 'We're not going to do that hospital work worth $50,000 because you're on the government's list.' That's not how business works. What the small supplier in my electorate wants is to do that government job. They want to do that work for Lendlease, and they want to be paid in a quick time frame. They've got their employees to pay. They've got their own suppliers to pay. The government has this weird idea that the small business will be able to shop around for better customers. The absurdity of suggesting that shows just how out of touch they are with how business works, how our economy works and what is happening.
It's not just on the worker side. I always thought, being from Labor, that they just didn't understand how things work from the worker perspective, that they actually believed that a worker had the power to sit down and negotiate an individual contract with their employer. There are people in the government today who believe that that can happen, that that's a genuine, fair relationship. I didn't realise that the government believed that small businesses had the ability to do the same. It is not that way in reality.
The government also contends that greater transparency on the payment practices and performances will create pressure and a culture for change to improve payment times. Again, we've not seen that at all from the Fair Work Ombudsman—this idea of shifting culture. You ask the Fair Work Ombudsman—and this has come up several times; this is in relation to wage theft—'How do you get cultural change that is lasting?' And they've always gone along the way of: go after a few, make it public, embarrass them, get some big names, and that will drive cultural change. That has not happened. In fact, it rarely happens. It rarely happens when it comes to workers, and it will not happen when it comes to forcing big companies. It will not see them change their culture when it comes to big companies paying little companies on time. The only way that you can do that is to have tough penalties, to have it mandatory, and not to have this soft self-regulation approach. I argue that the penalties in this bill are light and they will probably take a long time to prove. Desperate to be paid on time, a lot of small businesses may not even go down the path of reporting that they believe that their particular customer has not reported properly. The system itself looks like it is going to create a lot of bureaucracy and not deliver the genuine justice that so many small businesses are seeking.
I mentioned earlier the alarming practice of charging fees if small-business suppliers want to be paid on time. I was even more alarmed to learn that there is actually a term for it: supply chain financing. It's been recognised in several forums as being an issue—it's almost got a hashtag and trending. You would think that this government would act if it's coming up time and time again. You'd think that they'd actually do something to help out small businesses. They don't miss a beat when they're talking about how many small businesses are in their electorates or how many small businesses there are in Australia. They say that they're the great friend of small businesses. Yet with this critical bill they've failed to deliver a genuine reform that would have helped small businesses. Instead, they've dressed it up and called it self-regulation.
I was talking about this bill to a couple of the businesses in my electorate who have been hurt by supply chain financing, and I asked them what they thought about self-regulation. They laughed and said: 'You've got to be kidding! That's just a cop-out.' That is what one business, a concreter, said to me. It is still waiting to be paid for several jobs. Now when they go to do work they check the risk factor: 'Do we think this company will pay? Do we think this company will pay on time?' It's a question that they genuinely ask. They actually think, 'Will I actually go for this job?' They decide based on whether they think the company will pay, which is outrageous in the first place, and on whether they think it will pay on time. That is something this bill could address if it actually had some teeth in it.
To understand supply chain financing properly—and I know that people on my side have tried to point this out to people in the government—is it fair to ask a small business to pay, say, a $1,000 fee to be paid on time? Sometimes it's $9,000; sometimes it's a percentage. One of the businesses in my electorate was charged 1.5 per cent. That's a lot if you're owed $50,000 or $60,000 in supplies. These supply chain financing arrangements seem to be popping up in lots of different industries. They're popping up in the cleaning industry, in the building supplies industry, in the manufacturing industry—small guys who just want their fair share of the pie and, just like every other worker, to be paid on time. These are businesses that are quite often family operations, started by somebody in a family who then employs the rest of the family. They may or may not have employees, but they are desperate to keep the business going. As I said, cash flow is king, particularly at this time.
This bill has weaknesses, and I call upon the government to really take on board some of the suggestions that are being put forward. Look at some of the better practices overseas. Look at what New Zealand is doing. It is legislating a 20-day payment time. They are looking at it; we should too.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (17:43): There were many times in my 25 years in business that I felt like a bank. Small businesses often feel like a bank, a lender to big business, but I have to say the thing we do wrong is we don't charge interest. That's the big difference and the price that small business pays, depending on the clients that they choose—I will come to the issue of whether you choose your clients or they choose you. Being paid within 30 days, even by government agencies, was an absolute miracle; 60 days or 90 days was something you came to think of as acceptable. Sometimes at this time of year, in June, I'd be chasing payments, hoping to get the money in the door before the end of the financial year. Small-business owners are multiskilled but often that means you do last the things you like least. So, when I did get around to following up on a long overdue invoice, I might be told, 'Oh, it's just missed the processing date,' or, 'Oh, it's with accounts,' and all sorts of time-buying excuses. Sometimes there was human error and sometimes the error was mine, but when you're looking in your MYOB or your Xero at what is in your account there, versus what's actually in your bank account, looking at what's owed to you, versus the cash you have in the bank, it is absolutely no comfort when the rent is due or the BAS payment, or the repayment on your truck or the salaries are due. That is the dilemma you face. Every small-business owner understands that cash is king. You can have all the turnover you like, you can have all the revenue in the world, but without that money landing in your bank account you can't survive, let alone grow. Unlike big business, small business doesn't have a lot of other ways to increase working capital. We don't use the bond market. We can't raise equity. It's really about what is in the bank.
My experience of a quarter of a century as a small-business operator is the lens through which I'm looking at this legislation. I look at it with the eyes of the people who operate earthmoving equipment, the consultants, the caterers and the construction framers, all those who in good faith spend time tendering for or pitching for work from big business, who deliver that work and then—well, then they wait. They don't like to complain and they don't like to be difficult, because they want more work from those same businesses. They patiently wait, sometimes to their own financial detriment. So I do support the Payment Times Reporting Bill. We will be supporting it as a step in the right direction, but I have to say that I think it's a baby step.
It's worth understanding exactly what this bill is about. The bill requires around 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises with annual turnovers of $100 million and above to publicly report twice a year on their payment terms and practices for their small business suppliers. By 'small business' they are talking about businesses that turn over less than $10 million a year. That is what the legislation is about—not requiring certain payment terms and not enforcing limits on how long businesses can take to pay small business, but asking them to report on what they do, and there are financial penalties if they fail to report. That's why I call it a baby step. It's obviously a good thing to have information and reporting, but without anything else I question the effectiveness of it as a way of encouraging big companies to do better by small businesses.
The government believes that greater transparency will create pressure for cultural change to improve payment times. Certainly, work on a similar reporting framework was begun with Julia Gillard as Prime Minister. COSBOA's Peter Strong has reminded us of that, and there is some validity to that argument. But the Morrison government also has a view that the information will help small businesses make more informed decisions about their potential clients and help them to choose their potential clients. I don't know what world the Liberals live in when they think that small businesses have the power to go out and choose their clients. They claim to be the only people in this place who understand small business, because someone on this side of the House, on the Labor side of the House, could not possibly understand small business! Yet, many of us have spent decades working as small-business owners. They need to revisit that self-belief, because what this legislation shows is a real lack of understanding of small business. It is an enormous missed opportunity to do something tangible to help small businesses. My small businesses are going to laugh when I say, 'Well, the government's tried to help small business by putting in a reporting mechanism.' They are not going to see it as being of any use to them. I think it's going to be some time before we get to a point where it's actually even going to be a useful piece of data. Most small businesses will tell you that in a lot of cases you don't have the luxury of shopping around for a client. You have to be really well established, with a strong pipeline of work and long-term loyal clients, to spurn someone on the basis that they may take a long time to pay your invoices. So many of them take a really long time. Some of the biggest companies or government agencies I've worked for, and loved working for, have been the worst payers.
The belief that small business can pick and choose clients is the sort of thing that doesn't understand the power imbalance that large businesses have over their smaller suppliers and contractors because of their size and their status. The Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, echoes this view in saying:
We support the Payment Times Reporting Framework as one piece of the puzzle, but it won't solve the problem of late payment times on its own.
Legislation requiring SMEs to be paid in 30 days is the only way to drive meaningful cultural change in business payment performance across the economy.
I agree. In my experience, the best way to get a big company to do the right thing is to make it a rule.
I do note that the Business Council of Australia already has a voluntary but unenforceable supplier payment code, which is a non-binding pledge to pay small businesses within 30 days of invoice. I also note the concern that the BCA has—that one of the unintended consequences of this legislation might be to encourage large businesses with best practice payment times of, say, 21 days or less to extend their payment times to 30 days. I think this is the sort of thing that needs to be considered by a Senate committee, along with questions about what it means in terms of red tape for large enterprises. I'd agree with the BCA that a one-size-fits-all policy for every industry may not be the way to go, as it doesn't take into account industry-specific circumstances. I recognise we need a piece of legislation that works for both parties, but this was the chance to start to even the playing field for small business, and that chance, I think, has been lost.
We also have the right to ask the question put by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman about the government's planned resourcing for the scheme—that it may not be enough. The regulator can be as little as one public servant, without support staff. I don't think you can talk about any payment terms for small business without mentioning supply chain financing and reverse factoring. This is where small businesses essentially pay to have their invoices paid in a timely way. It is not fair to ask small businesses to pay a fee so they can be paid on time. I'm pleased that the shadow small-business minister, the member for Gorton, has taken action on this with the ACCC, who have confirmed they are reviewing the arrangement of some large firms' use of reverse factoring. Third-party financing must not replace reasonable payment terms being offered by large businesses. As the ombudsman says, it's not acceptable for large business to use small suppliers to optimise its cash flow.
So I end where I started—with small business being the financiers of large business. I welcome this one small step for transparency, but I'd prefer to see one giant leap for fairness for small business.
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (17:53): I rise tonight to speak on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and the Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. Before speaking about some of the elements of these bills, I would like to make some broad observations about the importance of small business, of SMEs, to our economy. As everybody in this chamber would know, there are thousands of SMEs in each of our electorates. As everybody in this chamber would know, they are the backbone of the economy. These are many of the most innovative and dynamic businesses in our economy, and they are going to be absolutely instrumental to Australia coming out of the recession that it has just entered.
Of course, small businesses operate in every single sector of our economy. Every day, so many of us in this place are talking to owners of small businesses that are struggling: the restaurants whose business has collapsed; the TCF manufacturers in my electorate who have come under huge strain, some of them supporting many, many families; the services microbusinesses, many of which are the entire income of a household; and the tradies in the construction business. They reach into every single segment of our economy. And, of course, this COVID recession is having a devastating impact on so many of them.
For me, one aspect that this debate has highlighted is that, when we talk about the 120 days that small businesses have to wait for payment that is rightly theirs, we forget how long that period actually is. It's a number on a piece of paper, but think about what 120 days is. It's four months. Four months from today takes us back to the pre-COVID environment. Four months takes us back to a period which seems like an eternity ago. In that time our whole economy and society—businesses, workplaces and households—have been turned upside down. For me, this debate has reinforced what an eternity it is for small businesses in my electorate to have to wait for payments that they should have received earlier, and often these payments are being withheld by businesses that are in a much better position to deal with a lack of funds in their pockets. So the first point I'd like to make is not just the importance of small business to the Fraser electorate—and to all the electorates in this place—but the fact that, at this time when SMEs are doing it particularly tough, the problems that this bill aims to address are so much more difficult and damaging than they ordinarily would be.
The second critically important issue is that we need to reflect on the systemic issues that have motivated these reforms, which these reforms do go some way towards dealing with but nowhere near far enough. One of the underlying issues, which earlier speakers from this side have addressed, is the inherent inequality in the relationship between SMEs and their customers. The member for Bendigo and the member for Macquarie spoke powerfully and from personal experience about the fact that we are not talking about an abstract relationship where two equals are bargaining on commercial terms. What we are talking about, often, is a relationship where one side, in effect, has very little choice. The contributions from the member for Bendigo and the member for Macquarie powerfully set out why these reforms are so important but also why they need to go so much further. A regime which is based upon large businesses reporting twice a year will be nowhere near enough to deal with the fundamental challenges of that very unequal relationship. As the member for Macquarie pointed out, moral suasion in and of itself is nowhere near enough of a regulatory mechanism to deal with a practice which, like a cancerous growth, has spread throughout our commercial sector, because it has proved to be so advantageous to large companies. We need something far more powerful, far stronger, than moral suasion, naming and shaming, putting somebody's name on a register that may or nay not get much attention, hoping that will change a fundamental commercial relationship which has become standard operating practice for many large companies. Supply chain financing and reverse factoring have spread for very good reason, and this bill will do nothing to address that fundamental problem.
As so many speakers on my side have said, this bill is a step forward but it's nowhere near enough. We will support it because it is a step forward, but we want to see a more systemic inquiry by the Senate economics committee to see what more should be done in this space. Because this bill reflects a number of systemic challenges that small businesses face in their working capital and systemic problems arising from the inequality in bargaining positions, we need a systemic and holistic policy response, which this bill definitely is not. That's why we need the Senate economics committee to examine what more needs to be done and what other jurisdictions are doing.
This bill will require approximately 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises with an annual turnover of more than $100 million to publicly report biannually on their payment terms and practices for small-business suppliers. It is the second of three tranches of measures the government has committed to. The first tranche was to have the government pay its small-business suppliers within 20 days of invoicing if using standard invoices or within five days if using an approved e-invoicing system. That measure was implemented administratively. The third tranche, which was announced by the Prime Minister in November 2018, was to link government procurement with payment times. This third and final tranche, as I said, is a small step forward from the other two tranches of this package but goes nowhere near enough to deal with the fundamental policy challenges that our small-business sector is facing.
Prompt business payments to small businesses are critically important, as earlier speakers on this side have shown—people who have actually operated small businesses. This is a critical issue for small business, because, unlike large businesses, which often have a variety of means to increase working capital, including bond markets and equity raisings, small businesses rely more on cash payments and bank finance, which can often be far more restricted and difficult to obtain. Increasingly, despite this inequality in options, we see small businesses as the piggy bank—as so many speakers have alluded to—of larger businesses. What this reflects is not the fact that that is appropriate; rather, it reflects the inequality in the bargaining position.
Small businesses will undoubtedly welcome the improved transparency of this measure. But I suspect they will almost all say it doesn't go far enough and will be highly sceptical of the extent to which it will change behaviour in a systemic way. This is reflected in comments from Kate Carnell, the small-business ombudsman, who said:
We support the Payment Times Reporting Framework as one piece of the puzzle, but it won't solve the problem of late payment times on its own.
Legislation requiring SMEs to be paid in 30 days is the only way to drive meaningful cultural change in business payment performance across the economy.
Indeed, that mechanism she suggested is exactly what we see in New Zealand—a jurisdiction that we should look at closely to see what is needed in order to achieve lasting and meaningful change in this sector.
Labor is particularly concerned by the coupling of unconscionably long contracted payment times—sometimes 120 days or more—with the practice of supply chain financing or reverse factoring. It is troubling that this transparency initiative that we are considering here this evening provides no means to differentiate between a firm that pays in 61 days and one that pays in 120 days or more. As I've said, 120 days is a number, but, when one thinks about how long that actually is for a precarious small business desperate for cash flow, it's four months. In that long period of time, the world can be upended, and a small business and a household can be totally turned on its head. It isn't just Labor raising concerns with these aspects of the current bill and the proposed solution. It is stakeholders across the board who are concerned with this practice and with the need to adopt a far stronger approach.
I also want to make some references to some recent analytical work that supports the position that is being put forward by the speakers on this side. AlphaBeta, an economic consulting firm, recently undertook some analysis in relation to these practices. What they found is that this practice is extremely widespread. AlphaBeta calculated, for the first time, the economic cost of big businesses paying Australia's small and medium businesses late. They analysed more than 10 million invoices issued by more than 150,000 small and medium businesses. The results are a damning indictment of the practice of reverse factoring and supply chain financing. They provide a real, compelling argument for doing more in this space. Late payments by big businesses are sucking $7 billion from Australian small and medium businesses. This is costing the wider economy over $2½ billion in net economic benefits over 10 years, largely because SMEs pay more for their financing than larger businesses. This goes back to the point raised earlier, that it is highly inappropriate for small and medium businesses to be the piggy banks of large businesses with so many additional financing options.
There are some other points that are worth drawing out of this study. Each year, Australian SMEs extend an estimated $216 billion in trade credit to larger businesses, and, as the member for Macquarie just alluded to, quite often small businesses feel like banks. AlphaBeta found that 53 per cent of trade credit payments are paid late, by an average of 23 days. The scale of this problem is staggering. If these late payments were paid on time, it would be equivalent to $7 billion in working capital being transferred from large businesses to small and medium businesses.
Of course there are many examples we could point to and earlier speakers on this side have pointed to. There's the Carillion collapse, which was a very significant example of the problems in this space. There's the behaviour of Telstra and Rio Tinto, and I'd like to draw attention to the fact that it was attention brought to that problem by the shadow minister, the member for Gorton, and also by the media, that caused some of those practices to be cut short.
This problem is very widespread. The behaviour of many large businesses in Australia; the practices that were being implemented or that were being considered by Rio Tinto and by Telstra; the practices that we see reflected in the data that came out in the recent AlphaBeta study—they show that this practice is now entrenched. And, as I indicated earlier, that's for good reason: it makes good business sense for large businesses. So it requires far more than this very softly-softly approach.
The Business Council of Australia's voluntary payments code, which was launched in 2017 as a way of driving big business towards a public commitment on 30-day payment terms for small business, has failed to deliver change. Small-business ombudsman Kate Carnell recently said that the small number of businesses that signed up to the code was disappointing and that firmer action is needed. This is a good reflection of the fact that we need to seriously consider the mechanism that we use, and that biannual reporting on its own is highly unlikely to be enough to change what have become systemic, entrenched practices.
Labor supports the intent of this bill, but it does not support how far it goes. It does not support the execution. Labor believes that we need a thoroughgoing inquiry by the Senate committee to look at what is occurring in other jurisdictions, as a guide, a signpost, to what we should be doing here. This is self-regulation when what is needed is effective regulation. New Zealand is one good example of a jurisdiction which has looked at a 20-day payment time through legislation. The small-business ombudsman, Kate Carnell, has explicitly said that a 30-day maximum would be appropriate here.
So what we have here is—and I feel like I've said this on so many pieces of legislation over the last few months—a small step in the right direction, a piece of legislation that we can support but that, in some ways, we support reluctantly, because we should be discussing a far more substantive piece of reform for such a systemic and problematic issue in our business environment. This is an issue that needs a far more serious policy response, particularly at a time when we've just headed back into recession and when small business deserves so much more.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (18:08): I begin my remarks on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and related bill with some statistics from a McCrindle report. There are 2.3 million businesses in Australia, of which two million—that is, nearly 98 per cent—are regarded as small businesses that employ fewer than 20 people. Three in five Australian businesses—62 per cent, that is—are non-employing businesses, which means that they are probably subcontractors and sole traders and the like.
As others have already said, small business is the backbone of the Australian economy, adding around $380 billion annually to Australia's GDP and employing six million people, or nearly half of the Australian workforce. But small business can be extremely risky. New small businesses are particularly vulnerable, with only 54 per cent of new businesses surviving more than four years. Of more than two million small businesses operating in Australia four years ago, 36 per cent, more than one in three, no longer exist. Yet more and more people are being forced into small business as subcontractors, sole operators or gig workers because that's the only way they can get work.
Small business operators are not only exiting the system for reasons which are quite normal and by their own decisions. They are being driven out for many reasons. They are being driven out not just because of business inexperience but sometimes by greedy landlords, particularly some of the major retail shopping centre owners who are ruthless in their treatment of tenants; by slick-talking franchise owners who con them into taking up a franchise which is simply not sustainable; and, at times, by straight-out crooked business operators who intentionally don't pay their bills, become bankrupt and then shift their assets into a new entity and start all over again. And then there are individuals who simply don't pay for goods or services. They just plainly refuse to do so and say to the small business operator, 'Take me to court.' Most small business operators know that it will probably cost them more to take those people to court than to get the money that's owed to them. We then have large business operators who squeeze small businesses out of the market—we have seen that time and time again—because they simply don't want the competition.
The fact is that there are multiple reasons why businesses fail, and all too often it is for reasons outside of the small business operator's control. Then of course there's the issue that this legislation attempts to deal with—the long time delays in big business and sometimes government entities paying their accounts. I say upfront that, whilst I support the intent, I have very real reservations about how effective this legislation will be. For too long big business has used small business as a source of cash flow. Delaying payment, even when funds are available, creates income for big business. No sector understands this better than the banking sector. It was actually used very effectively for years and years. And, might I say, we often see even members of the legal profession delaying payments out of trust accounts for as long as they possibly can. Other large business entities have been just as exploitative at times by delaying payments by months and months.
Even more heartless, some large entities are telling subcontractors and other small business operators to whom they owe money that they will pay on time if the account is discounted. I recently had someone approach me on this very issue. After having carried out some work, if they wanted to get paid on time or within a reasonable time, they had to discount their account. That is simply unacceptable.
Another practice is the supply chain financing that others have spoken about, where small businesses are offered a third-party financier to pay the invoice on time but incur a fee for doing so. In other words, they have to pay to get paid, and others have quite properly ridiculed that notion. It is becoming a growing trend for business to adopt that practice. The member for Gorton spoke at length about supply chain financing in his own remarks. The supply chain finance review position paper from the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman stated:
Late payments by large business to small business account for 53% of invoices.
I repeat: 53 per cent. The report goes on to say:
This means that $115 billion worth of payments to small business are late and stops $7 billion of working capital being available to small businesses every year.
That highlights the extent of this problem. It is not thousands of dollars or millions of dollars; it runs into billions of dollars.
The report also states that nearly 40 per cent of small businesses report significant cash flow pressure due to late payments. So late payments are a very serious issue for small business. Again, if they weren't we wouldn't have this legislation before us. Then there are always the shifty business operators or consumers who, after goods or services are provided, raise deceitful claims about the work not being as requested or being in some way faulty. For many small businesses, contesting that becomes more expensive than retrieving the money they are trying to get. Many small businesses become easy targets for those who want to unfairly take advantage of them.
The reality is that most small-business operators are very, very good at what they do, at their own specific profession, but they are not business managers per se, nor do they have the expertise or the resources or the money to engage other professionals to help them when these kinds of problems arise. In many cases, that's partly why they exit the small business they are in. These are people who work long hours, who put their money and their homes on the line. Quite often they would have mortgaged their homes in order to get a loan of some sort to establish their business. These are people who make family sacrifices, who don't sit back waiting for a handout. These are people who have a go. These are the people who, over the past four months, have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 shutdowns. They will continue in many cases to wear the fallout of COVID-19. We know that for many small businesses it won't be a matter of weeks; perhaps it will be months or even years before they are able to get back on their feet again. In some cases, we know that they may never get back on their feet again. They have been hit the hardest.
Whichever way we turn, it has been small business that has made the largest sacrifices with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not only has their income been slashed; for many, lifelong investments, work and sacrifice are now seriously at risk. Yet when they turn to government for help it is rarely there. Again, we've heard from other speakers about that. In particular, we've heard about those small businesses that were devastated by the summer fires, many of whom, even before COVID-19 hit, had been left high and dry, and they are still waiting for government assistance which was promised but which it seems is very slow in being delivered. That delay may well also be the death knell for them, and perhaps they will never be able to re-establish. I hope that is not the case, because I know that most small-business people are in business not only to survive but because they have a passion for the industry sector they are a part of.
With respect to this legislation in particular, much of the detail will be contained in delegated legislation. It is becoming a trend of this government to do that. They don't put all of the specifics in it the primary legislation but refer matters to delegated legislation, regulations and the like. We still have not seen that and are unlikely to see it. Even when it does come up, you have to have a very thorough scrutiny process in order not to miss some of the things that, were they in the legislation, we might not agree to. The other concern is that it seems to me that, if we can't have things locked into legislation, it doesn't provide certainty for the small businesses that we're trying to protect, because they don't really know what they're going to get out of this. The payment term reporting brackets—less than 21 days, between 21 and 30 days, between 31 and 60 days, and then more than 60 days—are also too wide. They give too much latitude to business operators who want to pay late. The time frame should be much more restricted than that. In any case, what's even worse is that there are no penalties or remedies with respect to late payments. This is all about self-regulation. Self-regulation does work if you have industry sectors that are what I would call ethical sectors that want to do the right thing. But if industry sectors already want to do the right thing then they don't need to be self-regulated, because they are already doing it. So, effectively, we are trying to ask those industry sectors that really don't want to play fair to self-regulate—and I suspect that this legislation simply won't do that.
As with all pieces of legislation, and all pieces of regulation, it's always the case that those who don't want to be fair will find a way of not doing so. They will find loopholes in the legislation, or in the regulations, which will allow them to continue to do exactly what they are already doing. Nor does this legislation deal with late payments to small businesses by other small businesses or individuals, which represents a substantial part of the late payment problem. I speak to small businesses regularly. In recent months I have spoken with several operators of small businesses who were owed substantial amounts of money. Sometimes they might have put a particular facility in a property; in one case it was a security system which was worth several thousand dollars. The person who owed the money was not a big business. Yet to chase that money became an additional burden on the supply of that service. Again, this legislation doesn't deal with the money owed by smaller businesses to other small businesses, which, as I say, is often an even larger problem for small business. Indeed, many small businesses never deal with big entities at all; they simply deal with others in the community.
So, while the legislation is well intended, I doubt it will have the hoped-for effect. That is why this legislation should be referred to a Senate committee, where perhaps some of the issues that have been raised in the course of this debate will be further scrutinised and where perhaps some of the recommendations relating to fixed-time payments would be legislated and included in this bill rather than being left as part of the self-regulation system that the bill proposes. With those comments, as we have said on the side of the House, we support the intent but we would like to think that this legislation would go much further.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (18:22): I want to take the opportunity at the beginning of my contribution to this debate on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and a cognate bill to acknowledge that it is important that we have bills before this House with the best interests of small business in mind. My area, like I'm sure those of every member in this place, is profoundly reliant on our small-business operators for the employment base in my community. Recognising that, in the current context, as other speakers have said, small businesses have been at the forefront of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, I want to acknowledge that that is certainly the case for small businesses in my area.
Many small businesses have had to close because, due to the nature of their business, they were not able to continue. Some have had to massively adjust the way they participate in the local economy in order to comply with the health requirements. It was a huge stress and pressure on many businesses across a whole lot of sectors—and many of them are family businesses. In our area, there have been some amazing initiatives to support our local small businesses, as well as some amazing actions by our local small businesses to support others in the community who are struggling. I want to take a few minutes to give a bit of an acknowledgement about that in the context of this debate about small businesses. Firstly, I want to give a shout out to Toria Hope Kota, a community member who had the great idea of creating a Facebook page which she called Illawarra Menus. She invited businesses who had changed their business model to takeaway or home delivery to participate on that page so that local community members knew what their new offering was and were able to access it. It was a tremendous success. Many businesses adapted and innovated and used this platform to get the word out to the community. A few examples, if you have a look at the post—it's very easy to find if you look up Illawarra Menus—are Samaras Restaurant, His Boy Elroy, m2 kitchen, Attaboy Restaurant, the Arthouse Cafe, D'Amato's Family Restaurant, Coniston Bakery and Crown Bakery & Cafe. There are a whole range of our local small businesses having innovative responses to this very difficult situation, and they continue to do so. They've been very active. Pubs and clubs like the Cabbage Tree Hotel at Fairy Meadow, Ryans Hotel at Thirroul, the Fraternity Club bowling club, Bellambi Pub and the Wollongong Tennis Club all reopened for takeaways and deliveries and found ways not only to keep their businesses going but to utilise and keep engaged their staff so as to minimise the impact on unemployment. I want to give a big shout-out to Toria and all the local businesses that make that work so effectively.
I also want to acknowledge the Illawarra Mercury, our local paper, who went out of their way to tell the stories of what was happening in our small business community. They in fact had a 'back in business' campaign supporting small businesses. I acknowledge that our print media themselves are going through fairly tough times, and so it was a great thing to see the local paper getting behind local businesses. I particularly want to single out—and I'm sure the other journalists won't be offended at my doing this—Greg Ellis. Greg is an absolute champion for small and medium businesses in our area. It doesn't matter what event I go to for a small or medium business in the local area; Greg will be there with his camera in hand getting the story and putting it into the paper. I know he's enormously appreciated by so many across our community. Thanks, Greg, for all the work that you do.
Like many others, I took the opportunity to engage with my community on platforms such as Zoom and Facebook and so forth. I want to acknowledge the Corrimal Chamber of Commerce and the Illawarra Women in Business, both of whom I did Zoom sessions with, talking about the issues facing local small businesses. I know my colleague the member for Whitlam did the same, having these conversations with our Regional Development Australia Illawarra branch and doing those sorts of connections to talk about and explain some of the initiatives the government had introduced to get feedback on what was happening quickly. I thank Paul Boltwood from Corrimal Chamber of Commerce, Glenda Papac from Illawarra Women in Business and Deb Murphy from the RDA for facilitating those opportunities. I also want to acknowledge the amazing work done by the Illawarra Business Chamber, our peak business chamber, and Adam Zarth and the team in supporting our small businesses at the time.
As I indicated, it wasn't just about supporting our small businesses. Many of our small businesses spent time supporting others in the community, as is so often the case when we have difficult times. We also saw it during the bushfires earlier this year, with so many small businesses making donations and having campaigns to help people affected by this bushfires. I have a few examples. The Rotary Club of Corrimal, with the Indian association, got massive support from small and large businesses in our area with donations to put together care packs for international students. Obviously we have Wollongong university in our area and many international students, particularly students from India where, with the nature of banking restrictions in India, they weren't able to get support from their families and were really struggling. It was a great initiative supported by our businesses locally. Wollongong's Lower East Cafe partnered with Wollongong Emergency Family Housing, and they've been producing 40 meals a day for homeless people, a really great initiative. Centro CBD restaurant in Wollongong have provided over 1,000 meals for the frontline workers at Wollongong Hospital. So, whilst their own businesses were shut, they were turning their resources and skills to helping others. It is just an amazing story.
So, as you can see, Deputy Speaker, I am very passionate in my support for our local small businesses. For that reason, I wanted to speak on this bill, because it addresses an issue that is a serious one for many small businesses. Labor welcomes the bill, obviously, as a step in the right direction. We absolutely support the intent of the bill as a first step in improving the practices of large businesses on payment to their smaller suppliers of goods and services. Prompt payment is so important to small business. It is obviously far more important for their cash flow than it is for larger businesses. A large business may have a variety of ways that they can work around the cash flow, but for a small business the day-to-day survival and success of their business really depends on that cash flow. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeing large businesses use small businesses as a piggy bank to boost their own working capital provision, and that is clearly vastly unjust for those small businesses.
So this bill introduces a new payment times reporting scheme, which requires about 3,000 large businesses and government enterprises with annual turnover of $100 million and above to publicly report biannually on their payment terms and practices for their small business suppliers. Small businesses are defined in this bill as having less than $10 million in turnover, and the bill will create an identification tool to help with that process. The objective of the scheme is to improve payment outcomes for small businesses by creating transparency around that, and the government argues that, with access to information on large business payment performance being provided, the small businesses will be able to make a more informed decision about their potential customers. The government also contends that greater transparency on payment practice and performance will put cultural change pressure in place. Payment time reports will including aggregated data on the reporting entity's payment terms and practices, identify the entity and provide other relevant information. They will be published by a regulator on a central public register known as the Payment Times Reports Register, and the regulator will oversee the scheme. The scheme is intended to begin its first biannual reporting period on 1 January 2021, and entities that fail to maintain their records or that provide false or misleading information in a report will be subject to civil penalty provisions.
This is part of a three-tranche scheme of measures, and I acknowledge that. I also want to make the point that the Labor Party believes that, while this is a step in the right direction, there are concerns about how effective it will be in practice. In order to tease out those issues and give them consideration so that advice can come back to government on ways in which the intentions of the bill can be ensured, we are seeking to have the matter considered by a Senate committee. I think that's a good process. It quite often provides good feedback to government, and I would hope that the government is open to the inquiry and to the feedback and any recommendations on improvements to this bill. I say that because I believe it is very important for the viability of small businesses. So many of us, in our constituency work, regularly deal with small businesses who are having issues with not getting paid on time and not having the cash flow they need ensured when they've done work for large businesses and need to see that payment come through. So I support the bill and I support the amendments and proposals of Labor to see it improved. I hope the government takes them on board.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (18:35): It's such a great pleasure to follow my good friend the member for Cunningham in talking about local small businesses. We work together as a team, and through the crisis we've been working with our local organisations. Electorates are lines on the map, but the people who live locally—they might live in one electorate and work in another—want to see that their local members are working together as a unified team for the local interests. We've been doing that over the last few months.
Given the Payment Reporting Times Bill 2020 addresses small business, I'd like to start by saying a few things about the small businesses and small business organisations in the Illawarra and Southern Highlands. They are very well led. The Illawarra Business Chamber's young, dynamic chief executive officer, Adam Zarth, has been a great local voice for small businesses throughout the Illawarra in local and national forums. Good on you, Adam; great job, well done. Deb Murphy at RDA Illawarra has done a good job bringing together a disparate group of organisations and businesses, trying to put together a constructive and positive plan for how we grow our way out of the current economic problems in the Illawarra.
Our local tourism-facing businesses have had it pretty tough over the last two and a half months, but Mark Sleigh at Destination Wollongong, through his regular communication with businesses, the overwhelming majority of whom are small businesses, has done a good job presenting a positive, optimistic view of the future and some practical tips about how we get through the immediate. Well done, Mark. Steve Rosa at Destination Southern Highlands, up in the Southern Highlands part of my electorate, like Mark down in the Illawarra, has done a fantastic job. He is always positive and a great bloke to get on the end of the line. If you're feeling down in the dumps it's always worth having a yarn to Steve about the positive and optimistic future for business in the Southern Highlands. While I'm thinking about Steve Rosa, I've got to say: it's Pie Time in the Southern Highlands! If you're looking for something to do on the weekend, get out to one of the two or three dozen bakeries and pie shops in the Southern Highlands of New South Wales. Get your laughing gear around a pie from any of the shops. I'm not going to pick a favourite—that would be reckless!—but I can say they are all good and it's worth the hour's drive south from Sydney to get to the Southern Highlands and get involved in the event. Pie Time in the Southern Highlands: I'll be there, with or without sauce.
I also want to give a shout-out to some of our local media, the Illawarra Mercury and the Southern Highland News. They have gone through a change of ownership, and it has been pretty disruptive for the businesses and the local staff. They had their advertising revenue absolutely smashed, but, by jingo, they've done a good job over the last couple of months telling local stories, promoting local businesses and showing us a way and reminding us how wonderful it is and how important it is to remember that you don't just belong to an economy you belong to a community. They have been a great part of building community. I think Sharon Bird gave a shout-out to Greg Ellis, who is the business editor. Ditto from me, but I also want to give a shout out to Julian O'Brien, the editor at the Illawarra Mercury. He's a great leader of staff and a great leader in the community. You've done a good job, Julian. I love your work.
I also want to say something about supporting local businesses in the Illawarra and Southern Highlands. I've given a shout-out to Pie Time in the Southern Highlands, but I've got to say that I was listening to the news last week, before I came down here, and I was hearing stories about all these Sydneysiders who had driven south to spend a few hours in the wonderful village of Berry in my friend and neighbour's electorate of Gilmore.
There is rarely a thing that you would find the member for Gilmore and I differing on, but I have to say that when I saw footage of people lining up for 20 or 30 or 40 metres outside of a doughnut van and outside of every pie shop in Berry, and I was hearing stories of people waiting an hour or so to get a seat in a restaurant, I couldn't help thinking to myself that they had had to drive through my electorate, and there are some wonderful beaches and there are some fantastic restaurants, cafes and pie shops there. You can get decent doughnuts or a decent pie in half a dozen places around the Illawarra—you have had to drive past them. Yes, I hear the member for Blaxland asking about fish and chips. It is a wonderful place to take your family. The beach that I go for a run on in the morning, Warilla Beach, is a local secret. I am letting you in on the secret. Don't drive all the way to Berry. Drop off in the Illawarra, pull into Shellharbour, pull into Warilla or any of them. Pull into Windang, my local cafe. They dropped a T-shirt off. They have done a great COVID-19 issue of their T-shirt—the Dang! Cafe; I love their work. There are so many great businesses that you can drop into. You don't have to drive that extra hour into my friend's electorate. You can stop in at Shellharbour. So, all of you Sydneysiders who are looking at a place to have a day out on the weekend, think of Shellharbour, think of the Illawarra and think of my electorate. There is plenty going on there.
Now, I want to say something about the bill before the House, before somebody pulls me up—I am being very, very relevant, but maybe not always relevant to the matter before the House! The first rule in politics and the first rule in government is 'do no harm'. When I turn my attention to the bill before the House, it has great intentions—an important objective of ensuring that small businesses who are particularly doing it tough get paid for the work that they do and the goods that they deliver. I don't think there is a person in the House who wouldn't share that objective. If you are a small business, you are doing it tough, and you probably don't have access to the vast amounts of overflow capital of large businesses. Large businesses have a whole swathe of mechanisms available to them to smooth their cash flow. If you are a small business, you don't. If you deliver some goods and you are told you are going to get paid in 30 days, then by God you should get paid in 30 days. It is just not reasonable for these large businesses to be using small businesses effectively as their piggy bank to help them smooth their cash flow. It is simply not reasonable. So, the objective of the bill is good.
If I have a criticism it is that it actually doesn't go far enough, and it is not just my criticism. Kate Carnell often speaks a lot of sense in relation to small-business matters. I know she's from the other side of politics, but on small-business matters she speaks a lot of sense. She had this to say about the bill:
… the Payment Times Reporting Framework as one piece of the puzzle, but it won't solve the problem of late payment times on its own. Legislation requiring SMEs to be paid in 30 days is the only way to drive meaningful cultural change in business payment performance across the economy.
I think Kate Carnell makes a bit of sense. Legislation requiring prompt payment within 30 days is what is going to drive change here. It is for this reason that Labor is supporting the bill in the House but referring it to a Senate committee so that we can interrogate how the bill might be improved. When I read through the details of the bill, I was almost nostalgic for the days that the Treasurer used to come in here in his earlier and more junior roles and celebrate 'red tape day'. I was almost nostalgic for the day when the Treasurer, then the Assistant Treasurer, would stand at the dispatch box and celebrate the removal of commas from legislation as a great achievement in red tape removal. I look at this bill and I can't help thinking that there is a lot of red tape for not much regulatory grunt. So we've got a criticism. We'd like to see a little bit more grunt for the regulatory package, and it is just not there. I am in unison with Kate Carnell, the small-business ombudsman, on this critical point.
There are couple of other things I want to say. I've got to make this point: a bill which has the word 'transparency' within its title and seeks to use sunlight and transparency as the regulatory force to make large businesses, businesses with income over $100 million, pay small businesses, businesses with income under $10 million, on time, and uses transparency as the tool to deliver that, could probably deliver a bit of transparency in itself. This is a very serious point. Too often in this portfolio we are seeing legislation which is very, very thin indeed, where all the force and all of the work sits in delegated legislation—whether that be rules made by the minister, or regulations, or, in some instances, extensive powers delegated to the regulator themselves. I have heard and I can see some reasons why, for flexibility, you might want to do that from time to time. But parliament has a role in these important matters.
Too often we are seeing legislation which is very, very thin indeed, with all the regulatory force being delegated to people outside of this place. It means the executive and the regulators lack accountability in this place. It's not good enough to say, 'Well, an instrument that they have made is reviewable in the other place.' It might be a disallowable instrument. So let this be a warning to the drafters of legislation such as this: too often in this portfolio, bills are being presented within this place which are said to do big, large, powerful things, but those big, large, powerful things are not contained within the legislation; they are delegated elsewhere.
I know I am not the only person who has this concern. I have read concerns from New South Wales senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, who oversees the committee in the other place. She has made similar statements and raised similar concerns. If this place is to be a legislative forum, if this place is to be the place where laws are made, then the detail needs to be within the bill. Let this be a warning to the drafters. There may be an occasion where Labor in this place and the other place agrees with the objective of the bill but rejects it because the legislation is very thin indeed. These bills come very, very close to that mark.
Can I finish on a couple of points about doing what you ask other people to do. These bills are about ensuring that big entities pay small entities their bill on time when a service is delivered or goods are provided—a very worthy cause, indeed. I'd like to ensure that the government is doing the same thing itself. Too often I have heard stories from people who are either clients of or service providers for the National Disability Insurance Scheme that they have not had their bills paid on time. The consequences can be devastating. I have in mind the example of Bruce Mumford, a constituent of mine from the Southern Highlands. I spoke about his case earlier this year in parliament. Bruce nearly lost his bed. This is a guy who has multiple and significant disabilities. He requires a wheelchair for his mobility and a special bed to sleep in at night. His bed was literally being wheeled out the door with no replacement because the bill had not been paid on time.
This is not an isolated example with the NDIS. If government is sending a message to big businesses that bills must be paid on time, we want to ensure it takes some of its own medicine. Too often in the NDIA, this is not happening. When you look at the size of the people—the size of the organisations and the employees—who are providing services to the NDIA, these are small businesses and sometimes not-for-profit entities. They live from one pay cheque to another. If the bill isn't paid on time, the consequence for that small organisation or that small service provider and the people they are providing a service to can be devastating. We'll be voting for this bill in this House. We're sending a warning to the government about the way they draft their legislation— (Time expired)
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) (18:50): I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Payment Times Reporting Bill 2020 and the Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020. As a former small-business owner myself, I understand the need to be paid on time. There's nothing more frustrating than carrying out a service or providing a product and having to wait for your money for a long period of time when those small and family businesses have done a brilliant job and they're being held up.
Long payment times have significant and negative impacts on small businesses and produce adverse flow-on effects throughout the economy. The government has already set a new benchmark for payment times to small business suppliers. Since July 2019, government agencies are paying invoices for contracts of up to $1 million within 20 calendar days and, in addition, we have reduced government payment times to five days for small family businesses that use e-invoicing. These bills will establish increased transparency about payment times and provide a strong incentive for businesses to improve their payment performance, leading to faster and fairer payments for small businesses. Reporting on payment times and practices such as supply chain financing will allow small businesses and the public to better identify and engage with companies that pay on time.
Whilst I thank all members for their contributions, the opposition did say that this bill will not have benefits to small businesses, but we have already seen that the approach of this bill can shine a light on bad payment behaviour. Larger businesses, such as Rio Tinto and Telstra, rapidly abandoned payment practices which negatively impacted on small businesses once they were subject to public exposure. As a result of community concern, their payment policies were quickly revised to ensure suppliers were paid within 20 days. That's a great result, and we need to see that happen more and more. When big business reacts so quickly to meet community expectation, we know that they will be equally influenced by this reporting scheme.
In addition, whilst a legislated payment time may seem attractive, experience demonstrates that it will not provide the promised benefits for small businesses. In fact, if you legislate a payment time, all larger businesses may always wait until the end of that payment time instead of some of them paying early. That's important to note.
The Morrison government's approach is not about quick fixes but about delivering long-lasting benefits for small businesses and the broader economy. The Morrison government went to the Australian people with a plan to help small businesses and family businesses get paid on time, which included this payment times reporting scheme.
I should also note that the government has done a lot to help small and family businesses during this COVID-19 moment. I was speaking in my own electorate to Mike Kilgus from M J Kilgus Constructions just the other day, who employs 12 staff on his books. He understands the importance of being paid on time. He has been really, really happy with the federal government, the Morrison government's packages, in supporting him through this time as a small and family business owner. He has received a $50,000 cashback for his business via his BAS in the January to March quarter, and this has enabled him to buy $10,000 worth of tools for his employees in the last fortnight alone. Mike—Kilgus Constructions—also has five apprentices and has received half their wages back from the Morrison government in the first quarter of this time. He has also received $750 each week for each of the 12 staff via JobKeeper, so he's really happy with the support that his small and family business has received.
Let's face it: those opposite didn't have a great plan going into the last election for small and family business. The only thing they offered small businesses was more taxes. One that comes to mind was their very unfair tax on family trusts that said that a couple that split their income and that own a business are not entitled to an $18,300 tax-free threshold. That is Labor's policy still, as it stands today. I would just put out there that the Morrison government is supporting small and family businesses and we believe that this legislation will help. We call on all large businesses to make sure they continue to pay small and family businesses on time.
This legislation has been developed following extensive consultations with industry associations and representatives from small and large business since early last year. Their feedback has directly informed the design and operation of the scheme. The Payment Times Reporting Bill strikes the right balance of providing transparency for small businesses without creating an unnecessary regulatory burden for businesses both large and small. The government is acting decisively and responsibly to support small and family business and the economy as a whole to overcome the challenges posed by COVID-19. With the impact of COVID-19, it is even more important that large businesses, as stewards of their supply chains, pay small businesses promptly. These reforms highlight the government's ongoing commitment to supporting small businesses, ensuring that they continue to play a critical role in driving Australia's economic growth.
Once again, I thank all members for their engagement here today and their contributions and I commend these bills to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with the view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The House divided. [19:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) (19:05): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Payment Times Reporting (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (19:07): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (19:08): I rise to speak on the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020, and at the end of this address I'll be moving a second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name. This bill concerns the funding base for the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority. It both expands the funding base and rectifies problems with the calculation of levies for the regulated entity. It fixes an issue with the current APRA industry funding arrangement that the government has allowed to stand for far too long. The APRA industry funding arrangements have been in place for more than 20 years. The purpose of the arrangements is to provide funding certainty to our prudential regulator—the regulator in charge of ensuring that our most important financial services firms are operating in a sound, safe, ethical manner.
Over the last 20 years, the landscape of financial services has drastically changed. Our largest banks have grown their share of the market to capture nearly 80 per cent of household lending, superannuation has grown to be a $3 trillion cornerstone of our national economy—$2 trillion of that superannuation sector is directly regulated by APRA—and insurance companies have had to grapple with issues such as the growing threat of climate disaster. But despite all of these changes, small customer owned regional banks like the Illawarra Credit Union and the IMB Bank in my electorate have continued to serve regional customers effectively, efficiently and with concern for their communities.
It has to be noted that in the banking industry royal commission—the same royal commission that the government voted against 26 times; the royal commission that uncovered massive wrongdoings by the big four banks—not one complaint was made in relation to customer owned banks, but they have been paying more than their fair share in levies to pay for the regulator that's meant to be regulating and policing misconduct. Under previous arrangements, legislative caps on the total amount of levies that could be paid left smaller banks paying a disproportionate amount of the APRA industry funding burden. Smaller banks, smaller building societies, smaller ADIs were paying a disproportionate amount of the levies. This package of bills lifts those caps and will mean the major banks will now pay their fair share of industry levies. For that, we are saying: 'Good. Fantastic.' It is about time this bill came before parliament with a solution after the community and, in particular, the small banks have been calling for it for some time indeed.
The point of the APRA framework is to provide certainty for financial services and for every Australian who relies on the financial services sector, something this government is clearly incapable of doing. I want to say something about our superannuation sector, which is regulated by APRA. Our universal superannuation system is a bit like a sovereign wealth fund except, unlike sovereign wealth funds in other countries, this one is owned by the people and not by the rulers. It has $3 trillion in funds invested, and Australian workers have amassed the fourth-largest pool of pension savings in the world, equal to 140 per cent of GDP. As a proportion of GDP, that puts us ahead of countries like Canada and the United States.
What we have done in Australia is truly remarkable. Not only has superannuation helped Australians build this pool of retirement savings, it's helped to transform Australia from a country that was entirely reliant on the savings of other people in other countries to fund its capital requirements. Whether it was government debt—and we're amassing lots of that at the moment—or whether it was the capital to build our roads, our highways, our schools and universities, our ports and our critical economic infrastructure, or to finance the businesses or the banks, who finance our businesses, we were overwhelmingly reliant on capital and the savings of other people in other countries.
Because of occupational superannuation and because of universal superannuation, we have transformed that part of our economy. We now have a large pool of domestic savings which is not only delivering returns for members but is providing a pool of capital which has provided a great source of stability, I have to say, during the COVID crisis. I will give you one example. During the four weeks of the economic shutdown, some companies went to their banks when they hit the cash crisis. They ran out of cash to pay for their ongoing operations or they were in a position where they were going to run out of cash. Some went to their banks or their financial institution to access the cash needed. Many listed companies went to shareholders. It is a fact that the Australian Stock Exchange, which raised $20 billion over that four-week period, raised 44 per cent of all capital that was raised on comparable stock exchanges throughout the world. This simply could not have been done without our superannuation sector, because they were the institutional investors keeping Australian businesses afloat—an issue often lost on those enemies of the superannuation who have made a lot of noise over the last eight weeks but less and less sense.
Super will be critical to the economic recovery from the COVID-19 recession. But, unfortunately, government members cannot help but meddle with the policy settings. This week the Treasurer made a song and dance about how important it was for superannuation funds to be investing in local infrastructure and local businesses. We agree. We think our superannuation sector should be investing. It is already a significant investor in local businesses and local infrastructure. We think it can and should be doing more. But the thing that is different about superannuation funds and banks is that superannuation funds hold capital for the long term. It's a long-term capital holding and therefore they are able to make long-term investments—investments which create jobs, drive productivity and build our economic capacity for the long term.
You would have thought the economically literate on the other side of the House would say that is a very good thing. But no, they are doing almost the exact opposite. They are contemplating and proposing policies which will cripple our superannuation sector's ability to invest in Australian jobs, drive productivity and invest in wealth creation in this country for the long-term. Silly ideas such as treating superannuation like a bank account, like an ATM that you can get cash from anytime you feel like it, is completely opposite to the purpose for which superannuation was originally conceived. When universal superannuation was first conceived in the early 1980s, we knew we had a problem. We knew that increasing life expectancy, which has been a fantastic achievement of this country—better health care, better education and better sanitation mean Australians are living longer—does have an impact, and that is that the ratio of retirees to taxpayers is growing. There are more retirees and fewer taxpayers, and the fiscal burden on our children and grandchildren will be great if we do not do something about it now.
That's why in 1985 and 1986 the Hawke-Keating government had a vision for a better way—Australians becoming self-reliant and making modest contributions on a weekly or fortnightly basis to their own superannuation savings, ensuring that they had a dignified retirement and were less of a burden on future generations of taxpayers. That problem has not gone away. In fact, the problem has got bigger. Because of the necessary steps that have been made, and will have to be made, to put the economy back on its feet after the COVID crisis, we will be incurring greater government debts well into the future. Some are saying it will be in excess of 10 years before the debt which is being racked up today is going to be able to be paid off. At about the same time as this generation of parliamentarians and people of similar age will be leaving the workforce, we'll still be paying off that debt.
So the problem of funding the pension requirements for the future has not gone away; it's actually got bigger. The government's capacity to fund that problem has not gone away; in fact, it's become even more challenging. If you know all of this, does it not strike you as somewhat reckless—wilfully reckless, militantly stupid—to say, 'We are going to wreck the system which has been put in place to protect against that fiscal problem, that big problem, in the future'? That's exactly what this mob on the other side are trying to do—undermine the universality of superannuation, encouraging people to drain their superannuation accounts, creating a greater burden on them and a greater burden on the future.
I ask those opposite to think very carefully about this—very carefully indeed. You might think there is some short-term populist political gain to be made, but you are gambling with people's future, you are gambling with their ability to pay for their retirement and you are gambling with our children's ability to fund our retirement. It may sound like a populist thing to do now, but you are wrecking a system which has delivered so much for this country.
When the Treasurer stood up this week and said, 'I want superannuation funds to be able to invest in infrastructure for the long term,' it would not have been unreasonable for the fund trustees to turn back to the Treasurer and say, 'We are very happy to do that, but how about you give us some policy for the long term?' If they do not know what the government intends to do on crucial policy settings, such as the legislated superannuation guarantee levies or their ability to invest money for the long term for the benefit of the country and fund members, how on earth are they going to be able to make the sorts of investments in infrastructure, in startups, in innovation, ensuring that we're able to have more companies start up and more companies listing on the Australian Stock Exchange, building the pool of capital within this country? Quite simply, the answer is that they won't. If some of these geese on the other side say, 'We should be treating superannuation just like any other bank account,' you can do that—it is possible to do that—but, instead of getting the eight to 10 per cent that superannuation has been able to deliver on average, per year, for fund members over the last decade, you'll be getting a little more like the bank account interest rates, and you'll struggle to get two per cent, let alone eight per cent. I see the member for Mackellar in the chamber. I wasn't reflecting on him—I think he's a decent bloke; I quite enjoy my interlocutions with him—but, my God, some of his ideas will be a peril to this country.
If we want to have superannuation funds do what the Treasurer is encouraging them to do, we need stable and certain policy settings. That used to be a mantra of this government. We used to almost grow tired of them standing up in question time and asking themselves questions about stable and certain policy. Well, here's an area that requires stable and certain policy, the area of superannuation—long-term investments for the long-term good.
I encourage all members on the other side, in their contributions on this bill and other bills that are scheduled to come before the House later this week, to speak in favour of my second reading amendment and say: 'The member for Whitlam is onto something here. If we're going to get our superannuation funds to invest for the long term, we've got to give them stable and certain policy so they can invest in the national interest for the long term.' We know what the alternative policy is: higher taxes, lower pensions, lower growth and fewer jobs. That, quite literally, is what the geese on the other side are proposing: higher taxes, lower pensions, fewer jobs, lower growth and a more impoverished future. The choice is ours. It's in our hands. Let's do the right thing by our kids and by our country. I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes:
1. the Government has failed to provide adequate policy certainty in the superannuation sector; and
2. smaller credit unions and customer-owned banks have borne a disproportionate burden in funding the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority due to the Government’s failure to update funding formulas in a timely manner".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Swanson: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form 'That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question'.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (19:25): Well, his heart just isn't in it anymore. The member for Whitlam—endlessly entertaining but rarely informative—can't even speak for his full 30-minute allocation.
Ms Swanson interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: Yes, indeed, the member for Paterson is right. I should be careful what I wish for. Another 15 minutes of the member for Whitlam would indeed be stretching the friendship. But that's the thing about the member for Whitlam. He's kindly given me five minutes. I won't even need that long—but I see the whip informing me that I will need exactly that long, so I will go for at least five minutes.
The fact of the matter is that the problem for the Labor Party is that they're always putting donors before Australian workers. The member for Whitlam is the greatest shill for industry super funds that this place has ever seen. It is beyond reproach. We have a bill before this parliament—the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Amendment (APRA Industry Funding) Bill 2020—that does the radical thing of ensuring that the retirement savings of Australian workers are secure. That is what this does, but he still wants to amend the legislation. Ask yourself why. What it is that the Labor Party wants to hide? What is it that their donors in the industry super space are so scared of APRA finding out about?
We don't need to ask that question for too long, because what we found, when this government had the radical approach of saying Australian workers should be entitled to their savings during a pandemic and an economic meltdown, was that all these industry funds went to the Australian government and said: 'Well, we might actually need some money from the Reserve Bank to pay some of this out. You how we've been telling you for years and years on end that we don't have a liquidity problem? Well, it turns out that we weren't expecting Australian workers to actually want some of their money back, so now we do have a liquidity problem. By the way, we didn't mean to mention it, but, now that you're kind of asking us, you know how we told you that we've really allocated our assets and we've matched our risk profiles to our members' profiles really well? Well, it turns out that we actually did put a bit too much in unlisted funds and we do have a liquidity issue now.'
This bill will give APRA the capacity to look deep under the hood and make sure that that never happens. It's on the basis of the radical assumption that this parliament should ensure the retirement funds of hardworking Australian workers. I know the member for Paterson stands up for Australian workers in her seat, so she should be over on this side making this argument, not listening to the member for Whitlam's siren song: 'Oh, no, let's not hurt the good old fund managers. How will they be able to afford their second Ferrari for Christmas this year?' What we need to do is ensure that Australian workers' retirement funds are not in any—and I mean any—danger of not being able to survive retirement. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): You've got another 30 seconds.
Mr FALINSKI: Well, you were just leaning into the microphone. As I was saying, Member for Paterson, there's more to come. So the fact of the matter remains that what this should be about is the retirement savings of Australian workers, not the Labor Party's donors. This bill will allow APRA to look under the hood of all those funds, see what the unlisted funds have been doing and make sure that they have not been investing other people's money according—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ) (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
COVID-19: Lalor Electorate
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (19:30): I'm going to bring the tone in here down a little. Usually, you come in for an adjournment speech and, while the place is really feisty at question time, by about this time of night people are usually fairly measured. The member for Mackellar's leaving now, so I suppose the tone will naturally soften—and I'll appreciate it if it does.
The year 2020 has been a trying year for Australia, from the bushfires that whipped through the country across the summer to dealing with the health threats presented to us by COVID-19, and, at all stages, Australians have come together in a spirit of cooperation. I could make the joke that, if I hear 'We're All in this Together' playing on my television again, I'll feel, like a lot of Australians, tired of the tune. But the spirit has been valuable. We saw that in national cabinet, where party lines and state borders were forgotten, to provide clear advice and rules. We saw it in the spirit Australians showed in their willingness and their compliance with the expert advice. We saw it in this very chamber, where we—those across the aisle and on this side—came together for parliamentary sittings to consider, debate and amend urgent legislation without the to-ing and fro-ing from the Liberals because it was a Labor idea, like a wage subsidy or expanding telehealth services, or us in the opposition getting in the way of legislation because it was a Liberal idea.
We need to bring that spirit of cooperation into how we now deal with the long, painful beginnings of economic recovery. We have to deal with the subsequent economic aftershocks of the pandemic, and I know that members opposite, like me, are hearing about those every day on our Facebook feeds, from individuals in our communities who have lost jobs and who cannot find another job after 40 job interviews because the jobs are not there—people who are receiving JobKeeper and people who are not; people who are receiving jobseeker and people who are not.
Today, data released by the Treasury has substantiated something that I've long feared: my community's economy has been one of the hardest hit by the COVID-19 lockdown. Today's data has shown two postcodes in Lalor are in the top six of postcodes around the nation with the most JobKeeper applications. Those two postcodes are in the top three in Victoria, behind only the Melbourne CBD's postcode. These two postcodes encompass almost every residential suburb in the seat of Lalor and the city of Wyndham. And—while I've said many times that the JobKeeper payment should be extended, as many locals missed out—the data shows me what I feared. My community is relying on these payments. Our economy is relying on these payments. My high-street shops are relying on people having money in their pockets. And that is why these payments cannot be cut off at the Prime Minister's snapback deadline in September.
The facts are these. We are in a recession for the first time since 1991, and its consequences will be with us when the health impacts are gone. As recently as today, the OECD has joined a chorus of experts calling for the payments to be extended beyond the snapback deadline. From the RBA to the OECD, the Australian Institute of Company Directors and the International Monetary Fund—all have raised their concerns with the PM's snapback cut-off date. The recession will outlive the pandemic. That's why JobKeeper needs to outlive social distancing.
I started my remarks by reflecting on the spirit of cooperation and togetherness that have characterised the Australia of 2020 even more than pandemics and natural disasters, and it's in that spirit that today I have written to the Prime Minister. I'm seeking a meeting to discuss Wyndham's, our businesses' and our workers', dependence on keeping the JobKeeper payments going beyond the snapback. It's as simple as this: if JobKeeper ends in September, our Centrelink queues will be longer, our businesses will close and our economy will be devastated. If the Prime Minister dumps his snapback, these businesses will be given a fighting chance and locals will still be in work. This will be a critical juncture for Wyndham, for our economy and for the over 68,000 families who live in my community and who I represent. Prime Minister, I am here ready to work with you to support Wyndham's businesses and workers.
COVID-19: Arts
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (19:35): The arts, entertainment and creative sectors play a central role in our society and reflect who we are as individuals and as a nation. I am passionate about the role of the arts and am inspired by the creative talent that we have in our country. I see this across Sydney, undoubtedly the cultural capital of Australia, and very much in my own electorate as well.
Locally, I am very proud of the contribution being made by artists, performers and creators. The Lower North Shore is home to so many cultural organisations, from the Ensemble, Lane Cove, Hunters Hill and Willoughby theatre companies to our incredible musical performers, bands and orchestras, to the galleries and photographers and the many businesses in the screen industry. They are joined by hundreds of artists and performers who live in my electorate.
Due to the impact of COVID-19, 2020 has been an awful year for so many Australians. This is particularly so for virtually everyone involved in the arts and creative sectors. The coronavirus lockdowns decimated revenues overnight, putting many thousands of jobs in jeopardy. The cultural and creative sectors, in their broadest definition, contribute $112 billion to our nation's economy and employ over 600,000 Australians. These range from actors, singers and musicians to those we describe as 'behind the scenes'—the make-up artists, producers, directors, composers, sound engineers and administrators, to name but a few. While many arts organisations have very creatively sought to innovate and adapt to a world of isolation, nothing can diminish the fact that the arts and entertainment sectors have been amongst the hardest hit by COVID-19. The arts and creative sectors contribute in ways that can't be quantified in dollar terms or numbers. They inspire, entertain and thrill, and they encourage us to think about the world around us. Their role in advancing and strengthening culture is truly immeasurable. For so many of us, there is a real longing for their return to our lives.
During the current crisis, support from governments at all levels has been vital to the sector. I know my colleague the Minister for the Arts has been working intensively with key arts organisations. At the federal level support has flowed from the JobKeeper and jobseeker programs, which have sustained so many arts organisations and those working in the sector. I know from talking to local arts organisations that JobKeeper has kept them in business. Nationally, I have seen the leaders of many of the major arts organisations, from The Australian Ballet to major galleries to theatre companies, make comments in similar terms.
JobKeeper has been a lifesaver. This is reflected in the numbers. Of the 40,000 people who work within the creative and performing arts as defined by the ABS, including those in acting, literature and sculpture and those who work in live performance venues, more than two-thirds received a JobKeeper payment in April, with total payments of $76.1 million in that month alone. In fact, according to the Bureau of Communications and Arts Research, more than 90 per cent of people in the sector had employment arrangements which meant they could receive JobKeeper if their revenue had been impacted by COVID-19. Of those, 23 per cent were sole traders, 56.5 per cent were permanent employees and 11 per cent were longer-term casuals. There are many in the arts and entertainment sectors who do work more casually and, if not registered as sole traders, may not be eligible for JobKeeper. In most cases those individuals have been able to receive the jobseeker payment, which, after allowances and taxes, is similar in quantum to the JobKeeper payment.
I therefore have been frustrated to hear claims from those opposite, repeated by some in the media, that the government has done nothing to support those in the arts and entertainment sectors. The facts tell a very different story. As we move forward, the sector has been outlining ideas and proposals for its recovery—how we can ensure that the sector emerges as the vibrant, exciting force it was before the world was turned upside down. I support those who have argued that the sector will need very specific and substantial support in the months ahead, and I have been regularly talking with the arts minister about these issues. Many arts organisations have high up-front costs and face long lead times in staging revenue-generating events. Their financial reserves have taken a battering as they work to survive. I am, therefore, pleased that the Prime Minister has made clear his intention to provide additional support for the arts, screen and entertainment sectors, and I look forward to the details of that package being released in the weeks ahead.
These and other measures will be just so important to restoring confidence and hope for a sector that really is the beating heart of all of our communities.
Pensions and Benefits
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (19:40): Today, as in quite a lot of days in parliament, one of the debates which has been argued in our nation's forum is the issue of the robodebt scheme. Robodebt, translated into plain English, was the issuing of letters of demand from the federal government to Australian citizens it asserted owed the government money; they'd been overpaid social security. Labor and many in the community—and, no doubt, even some coalition backbenchers—raised many examples of unfairness since the scheme was rolled out over its 4½ years of tragic history. But I was privileged to watch an interview on the ABC this afternoon, and it's to that I specifically wish to address my remarks. A lady by the name of Kath Madgwick was interviewed by Patricia Karvelas. Her son took his own life in the immediate aftermath of acrimonious arguments about a debt that the Commonwealth alleged he owed them.
This is a very human issue. This is not politics on a daily basis. This is not another day at the office in the national parliament. Kath Madgwick has to deal with the fact that she doesn't have her son anymore. As we know, and as both sides of politics recognise and are very clear about, mental health is complex, and there can be many causes. But what I realise, listening to Kath Madgwick, is that she's owed answers. She listened to her son argue with Centrelink. She herself had conversations and tried to help protect her son. It is a parent's worst nightmare—not being able to protect your child. She now faces not having her child. This is an immense tragedy. I think the parliament and the political debate owes it to her and to others to understand what happened. This can't just be written off as unfortunate or unavoidable. It's a tragedy. It's been a very emotional day for her today.
The Prime Minister did use a form of words which some are interpreting as an apology. But the problem is: how did it come to be that the government of Australia could issue and raise debts against hundreds of thousands of its citizens and it was unlawful? How could it be that people felt pressured and felt harassed, and at the end of the day the government didn't have the power to do it? This is a major stain on the nation. Sometimes in this place we make sweeping declarations of right-doing, of wrongdoing, of self-congratulation, of criticism, but a lot of our fellow Australians feel that all too often politics is broken, that no-one seems to be accountable, and I think all sides of politics must contribute to the improved perception of our political discourse.
On the question of robodebt, it is not a satisfactory state of affairs for us to say to Kath Madgwick, to say to the memory of Jarrad, to say to hundreds of thousands of others, 'The scheme was unlawful,' 'We are refining it,' 'It is not sufficiently legal,' as I have heard the Attorney-General say on the Insiders show. These are weasel words. Saying that something is unlawful when we said it was lawful is not a refinement—that's a 180-degree turn. Saying that something is not sufficiently legal doesn't really cut it. If you steal a car, that's illegal; that's unlawful. But if you as the Commonwealth issue a demand to hundreds of thousands of your citizens, putting them under stress when you had no power to do it, that, too, is unlawful. And the system couldn't stop the government.
Social security recipients have appeal mechanisms to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal, on any number of occasions, said they had grave concerns with this system, that what was happening wasn't sustainable. The government ignored the checks and balances. Last November, with the threat of legal action, the government finally said, 'Yes, the scheme is not sufficiently legal'—or, in plain English, it is unlawful. But after 4½ years we still can't tell Kath Madgwick why it happened. We still can't tell her who did it. She acknowledges that it's not the Centrelink staff—that it's not the frontline people, that it's not Hank Jongen, the spokesperson for the department. She just wants answers. Let's find some answers for her. It can't bring us back to where we were beforehand, but at least it might do some respect for Jarrad's memory.
Robertson Electorate: Infrastructure
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (19:45): I rise to update the House on the coalition government's plan for the hardworking commuters in my electorate of Robertson. Central Coast commuters know all too well the very real impacts on their day-to-day lives of road congestion, a lack of parking and poor mobile coverage. They know it because they live it. So we're backing our commuters by working with Central Coast Council and the New South Wales government to create a strong plan to provide much-needed infrastructure for the more than 35,000 locals travelling to Sydney or Newcastle for work.
The lack of parking available at Gosford and Woy Woy train stations is a big issue. It's something I'm always hearing about. Local commuters have often expressed to me their frustration that, for instance, they sometimes need to arrive at Gosford Station up to an hour early just to be able to find a park. Under the Urban Congestion Fund the coalition government made a $35 million commitment for a fully funded dedicated commuter car park. This funding will be split between Gosford and Woy Woy stations, with $30 million for the car parking upgrade in Gosford and $5 million for the Woy Woy site. Central Coast Council have advised that they're currently in the process of choosing their preferred site for the commuter car park in Gosford. Once a site has been endorsed for Gosford, the federal government will work closely with the council to build this much-needed infrastructure in a timely manner. We've also been working with the New South Wales government and the council to determine the best parking solution for commuters in Woy Woy, and this work is ongoing.
All levels of government understand the importance of ensuring that these two vital pieces of infrastructure are delivered as soon as possible so that we can help to alleviate commuters' stress in finding a car park every morning. We are also delivering on our commitment of continuous mobile coverage along the rail line so that commuters can better connect with their loved ones over the phone, be more productive on the daily commute to and from work or perhaps wind down after work with a movie or a podcast. We have invested $12 million alongside the New South Wales government's $4 million to help deliver improved mobile coverage along the rail line and free wi-fi on stations between Hornsby and Wyong.
In October 2019 the first of the mobile base stations was switched on at Narara. Since then, three new mobile sites have been added—at Mount Colah, Mount Ku-ring-gai and Narara showgrounds. With four sites now completed, work is underway to complete the up to 16 additional sites over the coming months. There has also been significant progress on our commitment to deliver free wi-fi on station platforms. Wi-fi is now operational at 11 station platforms, including Asquith, Berowra, Cowan, Hawkesbury River, Koolewong, Lisarow, Mount Colah, Mount Ku-ring-gai, Narara, Ourimbah and Tuggerah. I want to acknowledge—indeed I share—the frustration that commuters have experienced with this project taking such a long time to get to where it is now. But I am pleased to see that the work is progressing along the rail corridor to deliver this very important project.
The federal government has led from the start on the issue of faster rail between Sydney and Newcastle, undertaking investigations for a business case funding under the Faster Rail initiative in 2018. This business case has now been completed and has been considered by the government. We continue to work closely with the New South Wales government on the next steps for this important project.
Another important commitment that is forging ahead is the Australian government's $391.6 million investment in the M1 Pacific Motorway. I recently had the pleasure of announcing the completion of the second stage of three major upgrades for the M1 Pacific Motorway, between Kariong and Somersby, with state colleagues the Minister for Regional Transport and Roads, Paul Toole, and my friend, and member for Terrigal, Adam Crouch. This full upgrade is expected to be open to traffic in the coming months and will make a smoother and safer commute for motorists. The M1 motorway project works hand in hand with NorthConnex, which will benefit the more than 70,00 people who use the motorway each day, including the residents in my electorate of Robertson. It is the missing link in the national highway route, linking the M1 in Wahroonga to the Hills M2 motorway. It consists of a nine-kilometre tunnel bypassing 21 sets of traffic lights on Pennant Hills Road. Once completed, motorists will save an estimated 15 minutes in travel time.
The government's investment in roads, rail and mobile coverages means that commuters can spend more time with friends and family and less time stuck in traffic or looking for parking. I look forward to keeping the House informed on future developments for these really important infrastructure projects for my community.
Indigenous Australians
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (19:50): We have seen over recent weeks, as a result of the murder of George Floyd in the United States, rallies and demonstrations around the world. We saw them here in Australia last weekend, where people were voluble about their concerns about First Australians and, in particular, First Australians and the justice system. It is important, I think, that we reflect on what that really means.
In 2019, Indigenous prisoners, First Nations prisoners, accounted for over a quarter, 28 per cent, of the Australian total prison population, while First Nations people represent only two per cent of the population. There have, as we know, now been 347 deaths in custody since 1991, since the royal commission report. In 2016, 30 per cent of all incarcerated women and 26.7 per cent of incarcerated men were First Nations people. Aboriginal women are more than 20 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginal women. Aboriginal people across Australia are 15 times more likely to be imprisoned than non-Aboriginal people. An Aboriginal dependent is 11 times more likely to be refused bail by courts. In 1992, one in seven prisoners was Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. By 2020 that ratio had risen to one in four.
The anger and concern being expressed in the community around these issues need to be properly understood and put in context. It is about us needing to understand, acknowledge and learn from this nation's history, to have proper truth-telling, to understand the dispossession, alienation, oppression, subjugation, the racism that has been the lot of First Nations people in this country.
Of course, despite what the Prime Minister thinks, there has been slavery in this country certainly since 1833. I might just refer the House to an article which appeared in The Guardian today by Thalia Anthony and Stephen Gray. They talk about what is slavery. They define slavery. They point out the history of slavery in this country, including of course the seizure of the 62,000 Melanesian people who were brought here as slave labour between 1863 and 1904. They go to the issue of the Aboriginal men and women who were indentured to pastoral properties in this country during the 19th and early 20th century. Let's be in no doubt about what has happened in this country and let's start to understand and appreciate why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people believe that we need to do a great deal more if we are to actually come to terms with our past.
I would say to the Prime Minister: I understand the intent of what you said today, but please, please go and look at Australia's history, understand Australian history, understand the context in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are now asking for recognition in the Constitution, are asking for a voice to this parliament, are asking for truth-telling, are asking for a makarrata and for treaties. These things are of fundamental importance yet, sadly, governments of both political persuasions have in this place since Federation effectively disregarded the concerns and aspirations of our First Nations people. Yes, we've passed laws in this place that we hoped, and we thought, would benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. That does not explain why we're in the parlous state that we're in in terms of all the social indicators, whether it's health, justice, education, housing, general evidence of poverty, nutrition—all these descriptors which show the gap that exists between First Nations people and the rest of this country. It's now time for us to properly take notice. It's now time for us to properly give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people a voice in this parliament. It's now time for us to amend the Constitution to ensure that our First Nations people are properly recognised within it.
Murray-Darling Basin
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (19:55): The enormous challenges faced by Australia in the last 12 months—in fact, few years—are unprecedented, from extensive drought to terrifying bushfires and a global pandemic. The efforts and attention of all levels of government and many sections of society have been drawn together over the last few years to support hurting communities. Meanwhile, a number of ongoing issues have taken a back seat, including one that has serious implications for Australian industry, food production and the environment. I speak of the management of water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin.
The Murray-Darling Basin is an extraordinarily complex system, and solutions to the challenges we face require extensive intergovernmental cooperation, stakeholder consultation and compromise. Since beginning my term in government, I have been listening to local voices, industry and organisations about the various challenges posed by the current system, and I've heard some creative solutions. Recently, I convened a teleconference roundtable discussion with the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Keith Pitt, along with the stakeholders in the water space, including growers, industry peak bodies and water management authorities.
We discussed issues such as water trading, including inter-valley trading rules, and deliverability challenges that pertain to the Barmah Choke. Many involved in the roundtable, myself included, were happy to hear that the minister is focused on implementing engineering solutions to manage supply and deliverability issues in the system. It was agreed that the time for politics and kicking the can down the road is over. We've seen the reports, we've heard from the experts and we've listened to the affected communities. Now is the time to take action to prevent disastrous outcomes for the basin and its communities.
Irrigators across Mallee are full of great ideas and solutions, including Danny Lee from Merbein, a retired irrigator of over 50 years experience. Danny is enjoying his retirement, but he's been keeping himself busy studying the basin. Danny is concerned about the environmental impacts caused by the unsustainable demand on our river systems and has proposed the installation of multiple new weirs as midstream storage along the Murray River to assist with controlling the flow of the river in peak times. He had many other suggestions. I have since discussed Danny's ideas and shared his written submission with the minister and my colleagues. I invite any other Mallee residents interested in water to contact me.
Last Friday, I was pleased to host Senator Bridget McKenzie in Mildura as we continued our discussions around water management in the basin. We met with Lower Murray Water, who told us about the Sunraysia Modernisation Project, a project funded by the federal government which converts open water channels to pressurised pipes. Andrew Kremor from Lower Murray Water told me that this project delivered improved irrigation reliability and access to 1,334 irrigation outlets, improving irrigation efficiencies for over 8,600 hectares of land. We also had the chance to visit Dominic Sergi's property in Red Cliffs. Dominic is a young engineer by trade and now grows a variety of table grapes. Dominic is an example of the bright minds working in agriculture and horticulture in Mallee. Dominic has thought long and hard about water and offered some excellent ideas about water trading and carryover. Hearing from local producers is a priority for me. I know that the expertise and knowledge is out there, and I want to learn from and collaborate with producers just like Dominic.
Senator McKenzie and I then met with Sharyon Peart and Nick Sheahan from the Mallee Catchment Management Authority, the peak body for the delivery of the natural resource programs in Mallee. Sharyon told me that the Mallee CMA is focused on getting the balance right. They do not privilege environmental concerns over the needs of producers or vice versa. They also know that producers want to get this balance right as well. They want the best for business, but they don't want to destroy the environment in the process.
Restoring balance to the Murray-Darling Basin system is crucial to the future prosperity of our nation, and listening to local voices is vital to achieving sustainable outcomes. I'd like to thank Minister Pitt and Senator McKenzie for engaging with me and my Mallee locals. I will continue to contribute to water policy that ensures balance between our environmental goals and our commitment to delivering sustainable water to producers and our local communities.
House adjourned at 20:00 until Friday, 12 June 2020 at 09:30, in accordance with the resolution passed on Wednesday, 10 June 2020.
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Robert to present a bill for an act to amend the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, and for related purposes. (National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Strengthening Banning Orders) Bill 2020)
Mr Sukkar to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to taxation, international monetary agreements and the cash flow boost, and for related purposes. (Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 3) Bill 2020)
Mr Coulton to present a bill for an act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973, and for related purposes. (Health Insurance Amendment (Continuing the Office of the National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2020)
Mr Albanese to move:
That the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Amendment (2020 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2020 made under Australian Postal Corporation Act 1989 on 14 May 2020 and presented to the House on 10 June 2020, be disallowed.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr L O'Brien) took the chair at 10:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Queen's Birthday Honours
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (10:00): Australian honours to be celebrated by members of community are something that this House often takes note of, and I am pleased to pay tribute today to Brother Nicholas Harsas, who was awarded an OAM on the weekend. Brother Nicholas was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to education and the Catholic Church of Australia.
Brother Nicholas is a very well known figure in the Fairfield community. He was the longest-serving principal of Our Lady of the Rosary primary school, which has existed for 90 years. He is much loved by the many people whom he educated. He is a Patrician Brother, and of course the Patrician brothers are a very important part of the Fairfield community, with the Patrician Brothers' College being the high school in Fairfield. The fact he was the longest-serving principal of Our Lady of the Rosary over its 90-year history is, I think, a sign of his dedication to the community. It's not only the length of his service that should be acknowledged but it's the difference he has made. To know Brother Nicholas is to like him. To know Brother Nicholas is to be touched by his dedication and his commitment to those whom he sought to educate.
I particularly want to note his commitment to educating newly arrived refugees in this country. My community, Fairfield, is the recipient of more refugees than any other community in the country. That's what we do every day—we live it every single day, welcoming, in more normal circumstances than we're seeing at the moment, refugees from Syria and other war-torn communities. And, of course that requires a level of commitment, including educating people, including young people who often have never attended a day of school in their life because their schools have been bombed or destroyed. They come to Australia, they come to Fairfield and we accommodate them in our schools, including our Catholic schools, Our Lady of the Rosary school. And Brother Nicholas was dedicated to doing that and ensuring a world-class education for them.
His love of education is also exhibited by the fact that he obtained a Master of Education degree 20 years after he began as a teacher. That was his level of dedication to lifelong learning. And he, last year, celebrated his silver jubilee as a Patrician Brother, and today he serves on the Patrician Brothers' Congregation Leadership Team, the worldwide leadership team of the Brothers of St Patrick. Speaking last year on his 30 years of service to Catholic education Brother Nicolas said:
A joy for me over the years is the connections I have made with students and their families.
… … …
This has been one of the greatest blessings for me.
Brother Nicholas left Our Lady of the Rosary school recently, in 2018, which was of great sadness to us. But he did go on to become the principal of Holy Spirit Catholic Primary School in Carnes Hill in the neighbouring electorate of Werriwa, which I know the member for Werriwa celebrates. I was pleased to be one of his nominators for the Order of Australia, and I celebrate it in the parliament today.
Lyne Electorate: Taree Universities Campus
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (10:03): The Taree Universities Campus will now become a reality with the recent announcement that federal funding towards the new multimillion-dollar campus has been secured. This is a fantastic win for the New South Wales mid-coast region. Many people have been wondering whether this would actually come to fruition. I'm pleased to announce that we'll be getting one in Taree. It will deliver enormous social and economic benefits for our region for many years and many decades to come.
The Taree Universities Campus was one of nine submissions to be successful in the latest round of the Australian government's Regional University Centres program. Taree Universities Campus will form partnerships with a number of universities and TAFE to offer a range of courses that deliver a combination of local, face-to-face, and distanced learning. It's known as a mixed modality of teaching, with the assistance of distance learning which has been so successful in Geraldton.
In 2018 I established a local steering committee that formed last year again to gather broad community support and develop a funding application for the TUC proposal. This universities campus was one of the primary and most prominent suggestions in a 2030 survey I did across the whole electorate. People were looking for some tertiary education, university presence, greater than what we had, which was a single university that had a computer lab in town. They wanted more than that, and this will be a real game changer in that space.
A board was appointed of local people with huge experience and backgrounds in academia, business, industry and community. Together, with members of the steering committee, we were all able to put together a fairly comprehensive submission. The Taree Universities Campus is a community based, non-profit entity that will rely on a combination of Commonwealth funding, community and in-kind donations. Now that federal funding has been approved to assist with the establishment of the Taree Universities Campus, the board can now negotiate a formal funding agreement with the Commonwealth Department of Education, Skills and Employment. The agreement will provide assistance for the establishment of the campus and its facilities, along with dedicated Commonwealth supported places.
Since this announcement we've had a huge outpouring of interest and support, like we did when we formed the steering committee. To give you an idea, there were 17,000 likes without any boosting on social media. I'd like to acknowledge volunteer board members John Howard, Alison McIntosh, Lisa Proctor, Graham Brown, Maurie Stack and Steve Atkins for their commitment and work in getting us to where we are today, and also thanks—(Time expired)
Corangamite Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (10:06): This morning I rise to congratulate five constituents in Corangamite who received Queen's Birthday honours this week. They were: Rosemary and Bill Brown, from Queenscliff, for services to their community; Lyn George for services to engineering and manufacturing; Jeanette Watson for significant services to marine science and ecology; and Neville Burrows, of Ocean Grove, for services to the Uniting Church and to the community. Each of these distinguished Australians has made a remarkable contribution to improving all of our lives.
I want to single out a couple of recipients to give you an idea of the extraordinary effort they've gone to in order to make a difference. Lyn George runs the boutique engineering firm Austeng with her equally amazing husband, Ross, in Geelong. Austeng started around 1985 and has been involved in all kinds of engineering innovation. They are at the centre of the renaissance in advanced manufacturing in Geelong. But, if running the business weren't enough, Lyn has found the time over the last decade to be a driving force in building manufacturing networks and ensuring there is real collaboration between manufacturers, researchers and educators. Lyn is chair of the advisory board of the Geelong Manufacturing Council, a network which shares best practice and gets unbelievably excited about invention and innovation. Lyn is a key supporter of the Advanced Fibre Cluster, a network of researchers and manufacturers which aims to make the carbon fibre industry a mainstay of Geelong manufacturing. She's also on the board of the wonderful ManuFutures at Deakin University, which gives up to 15 startups a supportive home for up to two years to get their business off the ground. It's what every university should be doing more of and it is what the federal government should be funding. All this effort is working. We have many more exporters in Geelong now than we had a decade ago. In no small part it's due to Lyn George and her colleagues, who are passionate about manufacturing and jobs in Geelong. Congratulations to Lyn.
I also want to mention Bill and Rosemary Brown. In their Melbourne life, Bill had already co-founded the Werribee Community Centre. Rosemary was on the board for 19 years, as well as starting children's playgroups. When the Browns retired in Queenscliff 25 years ago, they did anything but retire. They volunteer regularly through the Visitor Information Centre, the Queenscliff Historical Museum and the SurfCoast university. Their passion for helping has flowed to their children. Their daughter Sarah received Australia Day honours this year for her service to Boronia primary school. The Browns have been great role models not only for our families but for the whole community. Congratulations and thank you to each one of you, the Corangamite award recipients. We're very proud of you.
Leichhardt Electorate: COVID-19
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (10:09): Tourism is the single-most important economic driver in my electorate, and to say that we've been doing it tough is an absolute understatement. We were the first region to be hit and we'll be one of the last to recover. Our multi-billion-dollar local tourism industry literally fell off the cliff overnight. The impact has been, quite simply, devastating. Cairns has become the second-most severely affected regional city in Australia in terms of the percentage of jobs lost and the loss of gross domestic product. This is reflected in the statistics that were released yesterday. We are No. 5 in the numbers of people accessing JobKeeper. That shows the impact of that. More than $850 million has already been lost in tourism to date, with the loss forecast at $2.5 billion in 2020.
The distance of Cairns from metropolitan capitals and its reliance on tourism and aviation mean economic recovery times are likely to be much longer than in other parts of the country. However, we're being forced to begin our road to recovery with one hand tied behind our back. The mixed messaging from the Queensland government regarding border closures is doing untold damage to local tourism businesses. One minute it's July, then it's September, and then it's beyond September, but it's okay to protest in Brisbane, where we saw 30,000 people packed shoulder-to-shoulder for the weekend. Every day our border remains closed, Cairns and Far North Queensland miss out on the opportunity to attract the southern tourists that many local operators and businesses rely on. Southern tourists are already looking to book holidays, especially during the upcoming school holiday period, but, sadly, the message to them is that Queensland is closed for business.
The Queensland government's handling of the Cook Shire is another absolute debacle. Cook Shire was, for some unexplained reason that only the state government can tell us, included in the biosecurity region of Cape York. They made a big song and dance when they announced Queensland was open for Queenslanders, but they failed to mention that it didn't include Cook Shire. Within the boundary, there is not a single remote Indigenous community, so it beggars belief that it was included. Once again, the mixed message is doing untold damage to businesses in Cooktown and right across the Peninsula Developmental Road. It's crazy that we're seeing this continue to happen. The inconsistencies are unbelievable.
Yesterday, the health minister signed off on the biosecurity for all of Queensland, removing Queensland from biosecurity restraints as of midnight tonight. So, tomorrow, Friday—from one minute past midnight tonight—Queensland should be open for business, including Cape York and the businesses there. I'm calling on the Premier to make sure that happens. We just cannot allow this to continue to happen. It has a massive impact on the businesses. They've got to start trading and they've got to start trading tomorrow.
Newcastle Electorate: Infrastructure
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (10:12): With unemployment rates at record highs and so many businesses operating at reduced capacity, there can be no more urgent priorities for this nation than creating jobs and stimulating local economies. The former Labor government recognised the importance of post-crisis stimulus in 2008, when it committed $26 billion to a far-reaching infrastructure program across the nation—investment that turned out to be central to protecting Australia during the worst ravages of the global financial crisis. Indeed, it didn't just protect us; it saved hundreds of thousands of jobs and shepherded us through catastrophic economic conditions, with a AAA credit rating from all three rating agencies. Meanwhile, every other developed nation on the planet plunged into recession. It's no wonder that the Treasurer at the time, Mr Wayne Swan, earned the coveted title of the 'world's best Treasurer'.
Now it's time for the Morrison government to follow Labor's lead and deliver on vital infrastructure projects to stimulate local economies and communities like Newcastle. To be fair, the government has brought forward some local roads infrastructure funding in my community. In response to a request from government, the City of Newcastle identified $62 million worth of excellent road projects that were shovel-ready or could be made shovel-ready quickly. They are projects I was very pleased to support in my letter to the Deputy Prime Minister. I acknowledge that the government made a very modest commitment of $1.1 million to fast-track some of those roads projects, but this investment falls way short of actual need.
In Newcastle there is a plethora of local projects for the government to support—projects that will create jobs and help grow our economy. The list of these vital projects includes projects like the expansion and diversification of the Port of Newcastle, the Newcastle Airport expansion, the Active Transport network, the Hunter Sports and Entertainment Precinct, the Lower Hunter Freight Corridor, high-speed rail, and the highly anticipated redevelopment of the Newcastle Art Gallery. These are all known projects to the government. Indeed, many of them have ranked highly in the independent reports of Infrastructure Australia.
Equally deserving candidates include the management of Stockton Beach erosion, a ferry terminal for Wickham and flood mitigation at Wallsend. There are also less costly options in the mix, including the Newcastle East End streetscape upgrade, an organic processing facility for the Summerhill Waste Management Centre and much-needed upgrades for our local sporting fields and facilities. Let's not forget our six surf lifesaving clubs and ocean baths. These coastal facilities are all in need of upgrades and replacements. And social housing remains urgent. These projects will make a huge difference to my community if they secure federal backing. I'm calling on the Morrison government to help create jobs and drive Newcastle's economy by investing in these important local infrastructure projects. (Time expired)
Curtin Electorate: Children's Leukaemia & Cancer Research Foundation
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (10:15): I rise today to acknowledge the 40th birthday of the Children's Leukaemia & Cancer Research Foundation in the electorate of Curtin. The idea was inspired by nine-year-old Jennifer Harper, who was diagnosed with leukaemia in 1977. Sadly, Jennifer passed away the year after her diagnosis. This was the tragic reality for the majority of children with cancer at that particular point in time. Fifty years ago, only two per cent of children with cancer survived. While Jennifer did not survive, her diagnosis and the devastating experience inspired her father, Peter Harper, to take action. Having discovered that there was no research into children's leukaemia being done in WA, he set out to raise funds for that purpose. Over the years, the foundation has raised a significant amount of funds for research into childhood cancers. The foundation also established its own research lab in 1983. Since that time it's worked collaboratively with leading worldwide research bodies to continue the fight against childhood cancers.
Forty-two years after Jennifer's passing, the overall survival rate of children with cancer has changed from two per cent to 80 per cent. This turnaround is phenomenal. It is the incredible research efforts across the world and the funding and attention raised by Peter and others like him that have led to this outcome. But 80 per cent is still not good enough. Childhood cancer remains the single greatest cause of death from disease in Australian children today. It is for this reason that the foundation, the researchers and the volunteers have no intention of stopping now. I'm delighted that the foundation is one of the successful recipients of the government's 2019-20 volunteer grants. The foundation will receive $5,000 to support their volunteers, with funds going towards the purchase of computers and video equipment so that the volunteers, who make up 65 per cent of those who work with the foundation, can better engage with the childhood cancer community.
I'd also note that providing support for the foundation is even more significant this year because, in recognition of the huge impact the COVID-19 pandemic is having on many of their traditional supporters, the foundation made the decision earlier this year to cancel their planned 40-year fundraising campaign, called 40K in 40 Days. However, with the same spirit shown by Peter Harper back in 1977, the foundation just didn't cancel the event. They decided to do something for their supporters and they turned their 40K in 40 Days campaign into a campaign called The Circle of Kindness. Over 40 days the foundation is showcasing and supporting 40 different businesses who have supported them over the last 40 years. I would like to congratulate the foundation for the vital role they play in raising funds and awareness for childhood cancer research and for the positive contribution they make to our community.
Blaxland Electorate: Canterbury-Bankstown Torch
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (10:18): A 100th birthday is a pretty special thing, and tomorrow there is a very special 100th birthday in my local community: the Bankstown Torch newspaper is turning 100. While other newspapers across the country are dying off, the Bankstown Torch is still going strong. It's loved by my local community. It's how they get their local news. It's now the only local newspaper in the local community.
The Torch was started 100 years ago by a man named Les Engisch, and today, a hundred years on, it's still owned and run by Les's family. Les's grandson, John Engisch, is the owner and managing director, and his great-grandsons, Trent and Christian Engisch, are the general manager and projects director. Their aunty, Pam, is also a part of the team. It's a family business, and, like most family businesses, the people who work there are also considered part of the family. Mark Kirkland, the editor of the newspaper, has been there and been the editor for 26 years. Kim Cohen, the project manager, has been there even longer. He's been there for more 30 years.
The Torch is also part of the bigger Bankstown family. It's part of the story of the community I'm so proud to represent in this place. It's covered every major event in town over the last 100 years, from the visit of the Queen 40 years ago in 1980 and the burning down of the council to the elevation of a Bankstown boy to become the Prime Minister of Australia. In April 1955, 65 years ago, the Torch made the news itself when the building where the Torch was published was firebombed and blown up. The rumours, at the time, were that it was done by the competition, the Bankstown Observer. It was never proven, but the next month the editor of the Bankstown Observer and a journalist from that newspaper were imprisoned for three months by this parliament for a breach of parliamentary privilege for trying to influence and intimidate the local MP Charles Morgan. As we all know, the media would never try to influence or intimidate a member of parliament, and that's why this has never, ever happened again.
The Bankstown Observer is now long gone, but the Torch has never gone out, or at least not for long. Over the last few months they had to shut briefly because of COVID-19, but now they're back; they've been publishing again for the last three weeks. Hopefully, they'll keep going for a long time to come, because the Torch and the Engisch family are as much a part of Bankstown as Paul Keating or Steve Waugh or Bryan Brown and they've been around for much, much longer. Hopefully they'll be around for a lot longer to come, because there are plenty more stories to tell.
Chisholm Electorate: Surrey Park Swimming
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (10:21): No doubt the recent months have been tough, but thanks to the JobKeeper program many Australian workers and businesses have been spared the worst economic impact of the COVID-19 crisis. Recently I spoke with Phillip Kong, the general manager of Surrey Park Swimming in Box Hill. Surrey Park Swimming is a facility that many schools and families in Chisholm take their kids to for the learn-to-swim program. It is a unique centre that provides minerals based saltwater for swimmers with sensitive skin conditions. It is a swimming school that offers professional coaching and training to our elite swimmers. It is also a place many of my constituents rely on for employment.
Surrey Park Swimming was hit especially hard by this crisis. The nature of the business meant that it was particularly vulnerable to the physical-distancing restrictions that were a necessary part of our early response to the pandemic. Through no fault of his own, Phillip lost 100 per cent of his business's revenue—no swimmers, no kids, no families and no jobs for the coaches and staff. Yet, because of JobKeeper, Phillip was able to keep on all 73 of his employees. They are 73 hardworking Australians who do not, on top of everything else, have to worry about putting food on the table or looking for a job during a time of global crisis.
As the Treasurer pointed out, JobKeeper has provided hope and certainty during these challenging times. It has enabled a connection to be maintained between employers and employees. This means that when social distancing restrictions are relaxed and the economy opens up again, to which we are all looking forward, businesses like Phillip's will have staff on hand. They will not have to waste time and precious resources replacing the bulk of their workers.
Unlike the Labor Party, the Morrison coalition government supports businesses and their workers. Local success stories like Phillip and Surrey Park Swimming help to remind those of us in parliament why we do what we do. With the easing of restrictions, it is great to see swimmers are gradually coming back to the Surrey Park Swimming centre. In Chisholm, as in the rest of Australia, JobKeeper is responsible for keeping businesses in business and workers in jobs.
Perth City Deal
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (10:24): My electorate has a very simple question for this government: where is the Perth City Deal? It was promised by this government in 2017, it was promised in 2018, it was promised in 2019 and it was promised in 2020. Prime Minister Turnbull first promised it in July 2017, 35 months ago. They built the Eiffel Tower in just 26 months. The Empire State Building was built in 11 months. It's mistake after mistake with this government.
The Perth City Deal was due to be finalised in April 2019. Then, last year, in August, the minister promised he would revitalise the Perth City Deal, ignoring the fact it was four months late. On 28 October Minister Tudge said he was 'at the beginning of the process'—for something that was supposed to have been finished six months earlier. In March this year, WA Liberal senator Dean Smith said, in The West Australian, that he was optimistic the Perth City Deal would soon be finalised. What was the truth? We found out on 13 May. The government announced it was putting on hold the Perth City Deal. You can't just put Western Australia on hold. No wonder people question this government's commitment to JobKeeper, when the Perth City Deal is more than a year late. I ask again: where is the Perth City Deal—or, to put it in language the Prime Minister might understand, where the bloody hell are you?
This government's approach to Western Australia costs jobs. If the city deal had been finalised on time, there would be projects happening right now, creating Western Australian jobs. Instead, this government chose to take the slow, lazy option. There's a pattern of underinvestment in Western Australia. Not one project of the National Faster Rail Agency is focused on Western Australia. There is huge underinvestment when it comes to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and Western Australia. But, of course, the government have shown us where their priorities do lie. Queensland has a city deal in Townsville; Victoria has one in Geelong; Tasmania has two, in Hobart and Launceston; South Australia has one in Adelaide; the Northern Territory has one in Darwin; and New South Wales has one in Western Sydney. What's missing from that list? Perth, Western Australia.
Maybe the government have just run out of ideas, maybe they've run out of energy, or—it hurts me to say it—maybe they just don't care about investing in Western Australian jobs. This government has broken its promise on the Perth City Deal. Broken promises are the only reliable thing that Western Australians can be assured of from this government. It promised that JobKeeper would run until September. But of course that's not if you're an early childhood educator. No, you get cut off in July. Now—same deal—the government have no support for social housing in their building industry stimulus plan. They never deliver, and it's always average Australians, and Western Australians, who suffer the consequences.
Bonner Electorate: Centenarians
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:27): There must be something in the water, because in my electorate of Bonner we've recently celebrated several milestone centenary birthdays. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate these constituents. With five 100th birthdays, three 101st birthdays and even two 102nd birthdays occurring, I took the opportunity to support some local florists in my electorate and deliver beautiful bouquets to mark these special occasions.
In May, we had three 100th birthdays. Mrs Betty Badrick turned 100, and she's still very independent, keeping up to date with the latest news. Mrs Rita Young, of Wynnum West, also turned 100 in May and celebrated the occasion at home with her daughter. Mrs Young is also very independent, and the flowers I sent her turned out to be in her favourite colour. It must be that bayside fresh air, because Mrs Gwendoline McPhee, of Wynnum West, also turned 100, and the family celebrated with her via a Zoom catch-up. Mrs Mavis Hayes, of Manly West, turned 101. She received my flower delivery as she celebrated at a morning tea with some family. Our final May milestone birthday was Mr William Howley, of Wynnum West, who turned 101. I called William to wish him well, and, let me say, he was as bright as a button and enjoyed our chat about current affairs.
This month we have some more milestones. Last Friday, I visited Mrs Eveline Persello, of Mansfield, who celebrated her hundredth birthday with her family. My flower delivery brightened her day. We all enjoyed swapping Italian stories, and she gave me some good advice, as only a good Italian nonna knows how to do. On Tuesday, Mr Donald Wilson also celebrated his hundredth birthday and enjoyed morning tea at Nazareth House with his sons. Next week Mrs Hong Te Tran of Murarrie will celebrate her 101st birthday, and Mrs Heather Cossard of Carina and Mrs Gladys Rudd of Burbank both will turn an amazing 102.
When getting in touch with their families to send out flowers, it is so pleasing to see the love and care our older Australians are given by their families and how they'll be surrounded by friends and loved ones to mark these special occasions. Delivering some flowers is the least that I can do to celebrate their lives—and what amazing lives they have all led! My sincerest congratulations and best wishes to Betty, Rita, Gwendoline, Mavis, William, Evelyn, Donald, Hong, Heather and Gladys.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
COVID-19
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the document.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (10:30): I rise—not with any happiness, that's for sure—to talk about this statement that has been made on the Wuhan coronavirus, COVID-19. There are seven million-plus people infected around the world. In Australia, almost 7,300 people have been infected with this virus. Around the world 404,000 people are dead, and that number is growing on a daily basis. In Australia, thankfully—hopefully—it looks like we have stemmed that tide, with a very low number of 102. But that's quite a stark statement to make: 102 people dead is still a lot of people dead. There are families and friends right around this country grieving because of those 102 people who have died in Australia.
It's estimated that 950,000 jobs were lost over seven weeks, from 14 March through to 2 May—almost a million jobs gone. Hopefully, a lot of them will return as the economy reopens, but some of them may not. People's jobs have been lost, perhaps for a long time. Businesses have been reduced to ashes, and people whose life's work and life savings have been affected are either on the brink of bankruptcy or have already gone bankrupt because of this event. So it has been somewhat devastating for this country—somewhat devastating for the world, in fact. But I have to praise the leadership of the Prime Minister. I think that he has been very much the right person at the right time in this global crisis and how it has impacted this country.
I want to particularly say thank you to all of the hardworking health professionals, the frontline responders. These people, quite frankly, put themselves in harm's way during this event. They're like the SES volunteers who go out during cyclone disasters or the country fire brigades during bushfire disasters. They are our doctors and our nurses in our hospitals and in the GP clinics, the paramedics and the ambos. All of these people, as far as I'm concerned, are deserving of a national emergency medal for what they have done during this pandemic crisis. So, particularly to the hardworking men and women who make up the Mackay Health and Hospital Service and the Townsville Health and Hospital Service, to all of those who work in GP clinics, and to all of the Queensland Ambulance Service workers in my electorate and elsewhere, I want to say, on behalf of the people of Dawson, thank you for what you have done during this pandemic crisis.
Things could have been done better—there is no doubt about that. Hindsight is always great. Actually, during the event, I, along with other members in the Liberal-National Party and also in Katter's Australia Party, were calling for there to be regional management and basically a lockdown of 'North Queensland's borders'—I say that in inverted commas; we're not a separate state yet. There are local government boundaries that could have been closed down so that there wasn't the spread of this virus. We had 90-plus per cent of cases in Queensland originating in Brisbane and the south-east corner. So we could have stemmed that tide further. That option wasn't taken up, but I notice that there's now a bit of arguing from Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk against the position that she had with North Queensland. She's arguing that the borders of Queensland need to remain shut because of cases in New South Wales and Victoria. Well, the cases are extremely low now, and what we are seeing is the devastation of our tourism sector, in particular, in places like the Whitsundays.
Some of my constituents received some rough treatment at the hands of New South Wales Health authorities when they were locked down in quarantine after returning to the country. I'm very disappointed that New South Wales authorities took a bit of a heavy hand with my constituents, and I've raised those matters with people here. But, whether it's these issues or whether it's the issues of the people in Peru—I had constituents who were over there and were struggling to get back home and people on cruise ships who were struggling to find a way home—they were great difficulties that were managed through.
But, out of all of this, we need to look at the root cause of this problem. I hold one single entity responsible for it all, and that is the Chinese Communist Party. They unleashed on the entire world this virus that has caused such devastation. It has caused such a high death toll. In this country, it has caused 102 deaths, jobs have been lost and businesses have been lost, and an economy that was OK, that was going well, is suddenly looking very, very bad indeed.
There was a cover-up by the Chinese Communist Party. It is quite clear that the matter was covered up. Doctors were being silenced. Well-known doctor, Dr Li Wenliang, who died of COVID-19, was silenced. He was brought into a police station and told he was a rumour-monger and that he had to sign a piece of paper saying that he wouldn't say any more about this—one of the first whistleblowers. There were more doctors that were hauled in and questioned and arrested, and some disappeared. There were people who worked in laboratories that were near the Wuhan seafood market who disappeared. Why was there a cover-up? Why did they go into that seafood market and clean it out before anyone could do some proper inspections of the place? Why did the Chinese Communist Party authorities destroy early samples of this virus? Why did they do that? Why was there a cover-up? Why? The question has to be asked, and I'm glad that our government has pursued this with the World Health Organization and the World Health Assembly, because these questions have got to be answered.
We don't know where it came from. They say a seafood market, a wet market, but then there are sources within the Chinese Communist Party administration that say, no, it didn't come from there—that it came from the USA, apparently, and that the CIA brought it over. With the laboratory that exists nearby, I do think that there is enough circumstantial evidence pointing to that as the cause. I've been called a racist for saying that. Well, if I'm a racist for saying that then there are a lot of racists in very eminent positions that are coming out. Scientists, the former head of MI5 and the US military intelligence apparatus are coming out and saying that this is the case. The Harvard Medical School has a study out alleging that CCP authorities had knowledge of this virus back in August by using satellite imagery of the hospital carpark in Wuhan and also search terms that were going on from Wuhan. They were search terms that are associated with symptoms of a virus, such as the COVID-19 virus.
We know the cover-up happened. Why did the cover-up happen? You've got to have a close look at that lab—a very close look at that lab—because actually that lab has been doing some shocking research, gain-of-function research, where it manipulates viruses and can cause quite dangerous outcomes. That's not me saying that; a renowned microbiologist by the name of Peter Chumakov has said that they are doing absolutely crazy things in that lab that a lot of people are talking about. A World Health Organization adviser—Jamie Metzl, who's a member of the WHO's international advisory committee on human genome editing—has said it's likely that it leaked from that lab. This is one of the early signs. When this first came out, the South China University of Technology released a report by Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao that said:
… somebody was entangled with the evolution of the 2019-nCoV coronavirus.
In addition to the origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan …
Eminent scientists in China itself said this probably came from a laboratory. There are a lot of questions that the Chinese Communist Party has to answer, and hopefully we will get those answers because of Australia's initiative.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:40): Australians' sense of mateship is at its clearest in difficult times, and throughout this once-in-a-century pandemic we have again proven that we are the Lucky Country. However, I believe there is a clear difference between sheer luck and being extremely fortunate. I do not regard Australia's ability to weather this crisis as pure luck. It has been the result of hard work by every Australian, with everyone working together to ensure that we are in the good position we are in.
One of the lovely things coming out of this crisis has been the attention and care that individual Australians have given to their neighbours. There have been spontaneous groups set up around my community to ensure that their next-door neighbours are okay. Obviously, you can't see them and you can't talk to them, but you can drop off food and you can contact them by telephone. That outreach of support and kindness was something that I was really touched by when I myself received a card in the mail from someone down my street saying, 'Look, I'm here to help if you need it.' Now, we didn't need help, but there could well have been someone in that street who did, and that thoughtfulness and kindness is something I wanted to put on record. I know that it wasn't just happening in my street; I know it was happening all around Australia. People were lending a hand to people that perhaps they'd never met before; they were letting them know that they cared and they were there. I think that is incredibly important.
Now, while I say we've done well to come out of this crisis relatively unscathed in terms of our health, I still acknowledge that tragically, at the time I give this speech, we've lost 102 Australians. We have 102 Australians who have lost their lives, and there are family members, loved ones and friends of these 102 Australians who are grieving and who are sad. We need to show them our support, love and kindness as well and to let them know that we are with them. In my home state of South Australia, four South Australian families are grieving.
Sadly, around one-third of the deaths across Australia are among the dire consequences of the Ruby Princess controversy. This is a grave reminder of how important coordinated efforts are to ensure the safety of our community. Of the four South Australians to have died, half were directly linked to that ill-fated cruise ship. So, of course, we do need to make sure that we learn lessons from the things that might not have gone to plan and might not have been perfect. We need to ensure that we learn those lessons so that in the future, if we face something like this again, we know what to do.
Of course there has been a big impact on a lot of people's lives—on those who have contracted the virus and have had to have medical support, or those that have been impacted by not being able to celebrate with their loved ones or to attend funerals. Not being able to attend funerals has been one of the hardest things, as has not being able to visit an elderly relative in a nursing home. I know that has caused a lot of anguish and distress for many Australians, and so to them I say: I would like to acknowledge your sacrifice. There have also been very anxious people in our community, particularly vulnerable people in our community, people with a disability or chronic conditions, who have been really anxious during this time and really worried about whether they will catch the virus and what that means for them. I recognise that this has been a particularly stressful time. Such uncertainty and difficult times do have an impact on Australians' mental health, and I think we need to really acknowledge that.
There's been the economic impact that will be lasting and that is yet to be fully determined. We know that we're in the midst of a recession, and how we come out of this will be critically important. Industries and businesses have been hit hard, and many are without the ability to adjust their services in a COVID-19 climate. I would like to acknowledge those that have been able to adjust their business. Congratulations and well done. To those that haven't: we understand and we are thinking of you.
So there has been care and compassion, and there have been a lot of difficulties as well. I would like to place on record my appreciation for all the sacrifices Australians have made to ensure that we protect the health of all Australians. I would also like to list a number of thankyous. Particularly, obviously, our government and our opposition, both on a federal level and on a state level as well, have worked constructively during this pandemic to actually look after Australians and work in the national interests. I'd like to do a shout-out to our medical officials, our chief medical officers, both at the state and territory level and at the Commonwealth level, and those that support them. Both in South Australia and in the Commonwealth, it was a new job for both of the chief medical officers, and I'm sure it has been a huge experience for them. I thank them for their input, advice and commitment. I'm sure they've been working a huge amount to flatten that curve.
Of course there have been many other workers. There are the health frontline workers, and they deserve our big thanks. The care, the compassion, the prioritising of need. Those that have been in aged-care facilities, our cleaners and support staff within our hospitals and healthcare settings have been critically important. While many of us have been able to work from home, there have been those jobs we've relied on who can't work from home because they are there to look after us. They are there to care for us, so I would like to say thank you.
To our early childhood educators and our teachers, this has been a very difficult time for those individuals. For early childhood workers, their work didn't stop. Children kept turning up; those children of essential workers. It's pretty hard to socially distance in an early learning and care setting. They kept turning up and looking after children. It would have been a very stressful and anxious time for those early educators, but they provided the high-quality care that they always do. For our teachers it was a very confusing time. In a fast-paced sort of way they had to get their online offering up very, very quickly for those students that could stay at home, and of course there were always children that needed to go to school in a physical environment. The teachers and the school staff and the principals and everyone worked very, very hard to make sure children were looked after. Of course, as we move forward, we need to make sure that they are not left behind.
There were also the other workers, such as the retail workers, the cleaners, the transport workers. These workers are some of our lowest-paid workers in the community, but they kept turning up to work to make sure we could get our groceries or to make sure that services were cleaned right across Australia, whether that was in hospitals, GP clinics, supermarkets—wherever there were essential services being provided, cleaners were there to make sure that they were safe environments. And of course our transport workers were making sure that goods got to where they needed to go and that essential public transport was still available for those that desperately needed services.
Of course there re all the emergency services that couldn't stop. If there were a fire during COVID or if there were a weather event, there still needed to be emergency services like ambulance officers. Everyone had to still be on deck to look after our community, and I'd like to say thank you. And of course there were our support services and volunteers: emergency food relief, mental health and a whole range of other services that were still needed in the community. Those social and support service workers and volunteers in my electorate—and, I'm sure, around the rest of Australia—were working very, very hard.
So while we're not out of the woods yet, the work we've done so far is critically important. Almost exactly 100 years ago, Australia was in a similar position. In 1918, we weathered the Spanish flu pandemic better than other countries, but there was a second wave that was very devastating. So we can't be complacent. We all need to work together and ensure that we stay vigilant to ensure that this doesn't happen. To my community and to the rest of Australia, we say thank you.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:50): I'm delighted to follow on from my friend the member for Kingston, and I particularly want to acknowledge the work that she has done in a particularly difficult set of circumstances, advocating and leading on behalf of our early educators and childcare sector. I place on record the thanks of the people of Oxley for her work. I will be focusing on a lot in my speech today. There's a lot to get through, but I want to focus on the people who have missed out and who have been forgotten during this pandemic.
Not only am I the proud member for Oxley; I'm a proud Queenslander, and I want to remind the House just how well my home state have done. As of today, there have tragically been six lost lives, with five related to cruise ships entering our country. There have been 236,000 tests. We know, in our nation, we grieve and remember the 102 souls that have been lost, and we particularly keep them in our thoughts and prayers as we gather in this parliament.
I want to start off by acknowledging the work of our Queensland government and local government officials, who have really led from the front to deal with this pandemic. I place on record great thanks to the Premier of Queensland, the Hon. Annastacia Palaszczuk, who has led our state through one of the most uncertain periods with the COVID-19 outbreak. The premier's leadership has brought us to a very low number of currently active cases in Queensland, and we hope this streak continues while we are all mindful of social distancing and responsible behaviour.
I've been so proud and honoured to be the member for Oxley during this time in our nation's history. In the first weeks, when the pandemic hit, I held conversations with local community and business groups, churches and organisations right across the electorate. What I saw was an outstanding contribution from all our schools, small businesses, cultural groups, volunteers and faith leaders from across the Oxley electorate, all pitching in together. The community has shown great resilience during this difficult time, but it has not been easy. I think of the 13,000 small businesses in the Oxley electorate and I think of all the jobs and businesses that have been lost. I think of the long lines outside the Centrelink offices. I think of the early childhood educators that are still in need of support. We know that there are literally millions of Australians that have missed out on income support. Whilst Labor offered its support for the government's response, we know that the one-size-fits-all approach simply didn't cover everyone, and many Australians have been left behind.
With 13,000 small businesses in the Oxley electorate, and with our hard-working chambers of commerce, the Centenary & Districts Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Springfield Chamber of Commerce, I was really proud to see them pull together and make sure that they are still delivering outstanding services and businesses to many in the community. I partnered with some of our state members to make sure we did a Tuesday check-in, which was an awareness campaign that we did so that the community knew which businesses were open, which supports were available and how we could shop local and buy local. The more we do that, the more we keep money circulating in our local economy, the more our businesses will survive and grow. We know—and I know, coming from a small business background, with my parents running small businesses—that small business is the backbone of our economy. They are the unsung heroes, the mums and dads who take a risk, go out and enjoy free enterprise with the hope of improving their lives and their families' lives. We know how many of those people have been impacted by COVID-19. So I salute the businesses in the Oxley electorate and I thank them for their service and their dedication to employment and to providing an economic support base for our community. I know they're not out of the woods yet and I stand shoulder to shoulder with them as we get through this.
Over the last month I've been in contact with our early childhood educators and childcare centres. I know that after some of the most difficult employment situations they were left stranded by this government. The so-called announcement of free child care was a headline but it actually didn't deliver free child care. The most challenging is that we've seen people trying to access JobKeeper payments, and now, when they finally got Jobseeker, the government announced a broken promise, to withdraw Jobseeker. Now, just when they're back on their feet, we're seeing what I think is a pretty cruel measure by this government for a sector that, more than any other, has delivered support and care for those children of frontline workers. I think they are being treated as second-class citizens. They're harsh words, but it needs to be said. The stress placed on these workers and their families is unfathomable, and the mental health of our community continues to be at the forefront of what I stand for.
My electorate is extremely diverse and is home to Australians of many backgrounds, with around 50,000 people who were born overseas or had a parent born overseas, and many ethnic and religious backgrounds. One of the key areas that I've been most disappointed with in the government's response, though it hasn't had a lot of cut-through or a lot of headlines, is the way that we have treated international students. I've got a number of churches and welfare organisations that have had to fill the gap because this government has refused to take action on the care and welfare of international students. I recently visited Riverlife Baptist Church, whose members have generously donated thousands of dollars towards food parcels, financial relief and other assistance for many international students who they are connected with. We know the contribution that international students make to our Queensland economy and the national economy, but sadly many of these students have not been eligible for JobKeeper, Jobseeker or any assistance at all. The fear and the concern by so many international students, who haven't been able to return home because of closed borders and who want to remain in Australia to continue studies but are financially at breaking point—I've heard stories about students being exploited, students who have been evicted from their homes, the whole tragedy. We as a society and a country must do more to look after and protect the most vulnerable, and right now some of those people are international students.
As I said in my earlier remarks, the state governments have played a huge part in delivering the COVID-19 response, and they continue to play a crucial role. I want to take a moment again to acknowledge the work of the Queensland government alongside the newly appointed Deputy Premier and health minister, Steven Miles, and the new Queensland Treasurer, Cameron Dick, who happens to be my brother as well in his spare time. They have continued to serve Queensland well throughout this unprecedented time. Early on the Queensland government took the lead and released their own response website. This helped direct Queenslanders to one place for information to help the most vulnerable and the support they received. Having pledged a $3 billion package in funding for jobs and businesses, rental assistance, utilities and a job finders program, the Queensland government really has been at the forefront, the gold standard, when it comes to the response. We've also seen a $17 million package from the Queensland government directed to the University of Queensland for vaccine research and production and a further $28 million for mental health support services.
As I said, the work that the Premier of Queensland has undertaken alongside the National Cabinet has been absolutely outstanding during this difficult time. We often say that Queensland not only has flattened the curve, but it has smashed the curve. It has amongst the fewest cases of COVID-19 in the country. This has had some strong reactions across the community, but the Premier has always indicated the imperative that we work together to respond to this health crisis so that we can tackle the economic crisis that Queensland will no doubt face as a result of this national pandemic.
I also want to quickly acknowledge the work of the Care Army, which was set up by the Queensland government and which enabled thousands of Queenslanders to come together to help, just like we did during the recovery from the 2011 floods. The Care Army has put Queenslanders back in the hands of those who can help each other, and particularly those who are most vulnerable, such as the elderly and those who have lost their jobs. So while we're not over this yet and we've still got a long way to go, I pay credit to all the volunteers and community groups in the Oxley electorate, those wonderful people that call our community home.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:01): Firstly, I'd like to say a massive thank you to everyone in Newcastle for the incredible lengths that you've gone to to support and protect each other during these times. I say thank you to the community organisations that almost instantly rallied to identify people in need and to work out ways in which they would be able to best help; to the businesses that faced their own significant challenges but put those aside to help health workers and those in our community who were doing it tough; to the individuals who reached out to offer support to strangers and friends alike; to everyone who sacrificed so much to keep our community healthy. You made me and all of us so proud to be Novocastrians. We are living through historic times. COVID-19 has affected every single one of us. It's changed our lives in ways that would have been very hard to imagine just a few months ago. Of course one of the most catastrophic impacts of this crisis has been the sudden hit on jobs. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of those civic leaders, people who are critical thinkers in our community, and the many grassroots activists and volunteers who really generously gave of their time with me to ensure that I understood the challenges and the impacts that this sudden loss of employment would mean for our region. I don't think any of us will ever forget that week when our Centrelink offices were filled to capacity and the lines spilled out the streets and around corners. This was a confronting sight for many in our community, and for many of the people lined up it was the first time in their lives they had ever engaged with Centrelink.
A key factor in addressing this unprecedented spike in job losses has been the JobKeeper wage subsidy. Let me be very clear: Labor supports the JobKeeper program. Indeed, we called for it for many, many weeks, and we were relieved that the government finally seemed to have understood the absolute necessity for a wage subsidy scheme in order to protect livelihoods and also to allow businesses and workers to remain connected so that they could get back to work quite rapidly when the time comes. But this support was never without constructive criticism from opposition. This was a very good program, but it was implemented very badly. From day one Labor has said that the scheme should have been better targeted. But this hasn't happened, and in my community thousands of people who should be getting JobKeeper support aren't, whilst some that don't need it are getting it. Tragically, some of the hardest hit industries are also the industries with the highest number of workers who are ineligible for support. Take retail or food and accommodation services, the third- and fourth-largest employing industries in my electorate. A huge number of businesses were forced to shut their doors, leaving staff jobless and in precarious financial situations. A lot are still trying to work out if it's financially viable to open up again under the current restrictions. But many of their staff are ineligible for the JobKeeper payment because they've worked with their employer for less than a year—something that is absolutely normal in these increasingly casualised industries. Likewise, a huge number of people in Newcastle's large, vibrant arts community also missed out. Why should these people be excluded from support because of the industries they happen to work in?
I've also been worried about the thousands of international students in Newcastle who have found themselves without income and with no capacity to return home, but they're ineligible for both Jobseeker and JobKeeper payments. While the University of Newcastle has been incredibly generous in providing support for these students, it shouldn't be up to the universities alone to fill this gap, especially given the dire financial pressures that are now facing our universities. Remember, this is a sector that has received zero support from this federal government. The universities have received nothing.
For those that are lucky enough to be able to get access to these payments, they have held off financial catastrophe. This makes the government's insistence that the increased Jobseeker rate, along with the JobKeeper program itself, will abruptly end in September even more reckless, especially given that the mortgage pauses that the banks have given homeowners to provide some breathing space are set to end at about the same time. Concerns about debt are legitimate, but the government needs to be very careful about the consequences of such a change in an economy that is still extremely fragile. If incomes are slashed and debts are called in before economic activity has recovered sufficiently, the outcomes will be dire and any perceived savings will quickly be outweighed by the devastating impacts of mass defaults and flatlining economic activity.
I'd like to move now to childcare workers because, regretfully, the government seems deaf to the warnings that have been raised across the social and political spectrum about the importance of continuing this protection until the economy has demonstrated it is strong enough to stand on its own. This week, we learned of plans to begin the JobKeeper shutdown to some of the most vital workers in our economy—the very people who were absolutely integral to ramping up the recovery. Of course, I speak of the early childhood educators. At the same time, the government will rip away the support it offered to families, with help with childcare fees. Families were already hammered by high fees before COVID-19. Fees climbed more than seven per cent in a one-year period alone. Now, when parents are earning less or have lost their jobs, this snapback will make early education and care completely unaffordable and inaccessible for many. For many families thinking about going back to work or increasing their hours, this announcement could lead them to think twice because of the crippling cost of child care. The government must also guarantee that bringing back fees won't result in plummeting enrolments and attendance rates, which will again threaten the viability of services.
I'd also like to highlight a really critical issue in terms of the diabolical increase in domestic violence in recent months. We know that violence against women and children worsens in the face of job losses and financial uncertainty. Add to this the increased pressure of families being largely confined to their home and the risk of domestic abuse increases even further. The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the brutal reality that, for many women, home is not a safe place to be. In my community, I've remained in close contact with a number of frontline services who help women and children fleeing domestic violence—places like Nova for Women and Children, the Warlga Ngurra Women and Children's Refuge, and Jenny's Place. They've told me that, while the number of women contacting them about domestic violence is up, they are expecting this to spike further as the lockdown conditions ease. For the past few months, many women and children found themselves trapped at home with the perpetrators, unable to reach out for help, but this will soon change and many providers must have the resources they need to respond.
I'm heartened that the parliament will now undertake a comprehensive inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, especially in the context of COVID-19. I acknowledge the chair in his role, and I'm honoured to be the deputy chair for this important work. But it won't be enough. We urgently need to invest in our frontline services to help women and children escape family violence, and we need that now. I have called many times in this parliament for assistance for Jenny's Place in Newcastle to adequately fund an important telephone resource, a helpline, and have been buck-passed from one level of government to the other. Nobody wants to own this problem, and yet, for a $300,000 investment over a three-year period, this parliament, right now, could make a difference to so many lives in my region. It's unconscionable to me that this has not been taken up by the ministers to date.
In summary, there are so many elements of the government's response to this pandemic which do have Labor's support, but there are areas where we know it's not enough. We must do better. We will hold government to account.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (11:11): I've been in the healthcare workforce as a nurse, as a midwife and as a rural health academic for over half of my life. From experience, I know what's important in a crisis, and that's clarity, consistency and making decisions based on evidence. These qualities have been on display since day one. There's been no fear of experts taking centre stage. Compared to other countries, it's clear that preferring scientific consensus over political expediency has set Australia apart. In a few months, we have gone from a nation slow to react to a horror unfolding in a distant place to one leading the world in flattening the curve at home. I thank the minister, the Chief Medical Officer and his deputies, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, and the hardworking Department of Health staff and their counterparts in states and territories for their leadership, which has brought us this far.
Today, 11 June 2010, there is optimism in the air. It does feel like we have turned a corner. But only a fool would dare to make predictions. Two months ago, parliament was suspended for five months, yet, happily, we're here today. Three months ago, our Deputy Chief Medical Officer said the best-case scenario was a sobering 50,000 deaths. Six months ago, COVID-19 was a meaningless collection of letters and numbers. Are we halfway through the crisis or has it only just started?
What we do know is that it's far from over. Last weekend, after 71 days of zero reported cases in my electorate, an aged-care resident tested positive to COVID-19. Cases like this will continue to happen. The difference now, though, is we are prepared.
Today, I want to pay tribute to the extraordinary commitment and achievement of healthcare workers in my electorate of Indi: nurses, doctors, allied health professionals, disability and aged-care workers, pharmacists and GPs, healthcare administrators, and leadership across the board. Their hard work has transformed our local healthcare system into one prepared for whatever may come. The two large public hospitals in my electorate, Albury Wodonga Health and Northeast Health Wangaratta, rapidly boosted their capacity to address any surge in COVID-19 cases. In partnership with private hospitals, they pooled infrastructure, workforce and supplies to meet demand while keeping patients safe. Their screening clinics have conducted thousands of tests and fielded many times that number of calls to their hotlines. Sally Squire, director of Pandemic Response at Albury Wodonga Health, and Rebecca Weir, executive director of Clinical Services at Northeast Health, have been central. My constituents report that the screening clinics are smooth and well-attended. I congratulate Albury Wodonga Health and Northeast Health Wangaratta for their clear and engaging communication about COVID-19. Advice from a trusted institution is invaluable in uncertain times, and I have no doubt that their Facebook posts and media posts generally have changed behaviour and led people to take social distancing seriously.
Last month I was proud to open the Wodonga Respiratory Clinic at the Central Medical Group with doctors Greg Gladman and David Tillett and general manager Suzanne Fisher. This clinic is responding to huge demand for testing, particularly for children under 10, and easing pressure on the public health system.
Another clinic leading the way is Tristar Medical Centre, next door to my Wodonga office. This service has a multicultural, elderly and family clientele. They were early adopters of proper hygiene measures, setting up a sanitiser station with masks outside the clinic, and they have excellent isolation and barrier techniques installed for all their clients.
Benalla Health's drive-through testing service began in early April and is now completing a blitz of nostril-tickling tests for teachers returning to school. Benalla Health sits on the Benalla Rural City Pandemic Committee, which is a fantastic model that brings together government agencies and healthcare and aged-care providers, including Carrier Street Clinic, Church Street Surgery, Coster Street Medical Practice, Cooinda Village, Estia Health and the Royal Freemasons.
Mansfield District Hospital, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Mansfield Shire and Mansfield's general practices, began preparations as early as January, and are working under the shire's multiagency pandemic plan. I especially thank CEO of Mansfield Health, Cameron Butler, for his extraordinary leadership during this time.
The Yea and District Memorial Hospital and Alexandra District Health have continued their excellent record of dedication and care for their patients and community while taking measures to keep everyone safe.
Our local emergency food and relief services have pivoted to providing a lifeline to emerging pockets of need, to people isolating at home or the newly unemployed, who never dreamed of accepting charity. These services include Albury-Wodonga Regional FoodShare, Mansfield and District Welfare Group, Quercus Beechworth, Salvation Army, Uniting Limited, VincentCare Victoria, and Loaves and Fishes. In a frightening time, where we often think of ourselves first, thank you for not forgetting the vulnerable.
The shift to universal telehealth, and assurances from the minister for regional health that it's here to stay, is the brightest silver lining in this pandemic. Telehealth can dissolve the regional and geographic and financial barriers to healthcare across rural, remote and regional Australia. Across Indi, telehealth consultations are now happening with speech pathologists, physiotherapists, dietitians, social workers and occupational therapists. The impact will be transformative. I'd particularly like to give a shout-out to Clare Wright and Sean Warfe of North East Family Medicine, who did a trial telehealth video with me on Facebook at the beginning of this pandemic to give people reassurance about how easy it is to have a telehealth consultation with your family doctor.
The community has stepped right in behind the healthcare frontline. Galen Catholic College student and innovator Ryan Falconer assembled a team to produce 3D printed face shields and bands for North East Health Wangaratta. With the help of VEX coordinator Maree Timms, 3D printing lab BioFab3D, Brett Ambrosio and Craig Murphy from GOTAFE's Innovation Hub, and Rohan Latimer of the Jewellers Coworking space, dozens of face shields and headbands have been added to supplies. Schoolkids and innovators across the electorate have got on board too.
Across my electorate more broadly, amateur tailors and accomplished seamstresses are putting the pedal to the floor to stitch scrubs and face masks. Pangerang Community House has coordinated sewing volunteers. The Upper Kiewa Valley Community Association brought together volunteers to produce surgery gowns and masks for the local hospital and medical centre. The Rotary Club of Euroa donated free hand sanitiser to Euroa Health after buying bottles in bulk to give to those in need.
As a former nurse, I am proud but not at all surprised by the hundreds of non-practising nurses who did refresher training so they could join the surge workforce. Then there's the nurses who upskilled in critical care nursing so they could support coronavirus victims in intensive care units. To my fellow nurses: whether you stepped out of retirement or out of your comfort zone, your willingness to go above and beyond has been truly inspiring, and I thank you. To the health workforce in Indi: you've had your clinics closed, rotations postponed, plans thrown into disarray. Almost as hard has been the state of readiness that you remained in for weeks, expecting the worst to flood through the door, not knowing if it would. You have worked long hours under increased pressure. Your calm reassurance has made all the difference to your patients and to your peers. Thank you for caring for us, and thank you for caring for each other.
To the families and partners of those health professionals: you've let those you love go into danger to protect us from an invisible threat. COVID-19 has made every day uncertain for you too. I see how hard you work to put aside those worries and keep the ship afloat and the family ticking along, with a smile or, indeed, the gallows humour that so many people employ in times of crisis. Your bravery is the unsung hero of this pandemic.
Finally, to the people of Indi who followed the health restrictions to stay at home—the same restrictions which have paralysed our tourism, hospitality and accommodation industries and led to job losses—I see the sacrifices you have made. I know it has saved lives. In Beechworth, Bright and Mansfield last weekend, I saw the first real influx of tourists for the year after fires chased them away and COVID-19 locked them out. Before the weekend, business owners told me they were excited but nervous; desperate for customers but scared about disease they might bring. This tension will be a fact of life for months and possibly years to come. But with strong local health systems working together with a supportive community, we are now more prepared than ever to face whatever comes. I thank you all.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (11:21): Most Australians have never experienced the kind of widespread disruption to our normal way of life that we have experienced over the last two months. There are, of course, members of our community who've experienced similar circumstances of lockdown and shortages. They are the migrants and refugees who came to Australia after their homelands were turned upside-down through war and famine, or our older Australians who remember the Great Depression, World War I, World War II and the postwar austerity required of our citizens. For the rest of us, however, our societal structure and way of life has, in no uncertain terms, been significantly challenged. From the ability to enjoy the wide open spaces or have a coffee or shopping, to the dislocation and collapse of employment and income safety, our way of life at this time is vastly different to what might have been expected at the beginning of 2020.
While Australia has done well to restrict the potential for COVID-19 to spread throughout the community, gaps have emerged. We have not ensured that all Australians have a roof over their head or the money to pay for food, medical or other bills. The first warning signs came when we all witnessed the huge queues outside Centrelink offices, when a million people lost their jobs overnight as health orders shut down many businesses. On Monday 23 March, half a million Australians became unemployed for the very first time in their life. Many of them had never had a need to have a myGov account, and it was clear that the computer systems that supported Services Australia and Centrelink couldn't cope. Unhelpful comments explaining that it was a result of a cyberattack were unnecessary, inaccurate and not funny. Disaster planning of these essential services was clearly not adequate. Queues down footpaths, stretching along streets around blocks and further, was a real-life example that Australians had nobody, or nothing, to turn to but the government for support. The fact that social distancing was almost impossible in these situations led to more stress, not to mention the stress of employees of Centrelink, who were needing to deal with these Australians.
Data from the ABS shows that 780,000 people lost their jobs between mid-March and 4 April, which was representative of the immediate impact on people employed by pubs, clubs, gyms, cinemas, beauty salons and any other business that deemed themselves non-essential. The same data also shows that some of our most vulnerable are bearing most of the burden of this number—youth and older Australians. Over two million Australians are now unemployed. Given these extensive job losses, especially considering the demographic of those bearing much of the burden, you can only imagine the stress that our frontline workers in our social security system are experiencing. When I hear the stories of abuse and shouting at people who are just coming to work to help others disappoints me greatly, especially when those throwing the abuse are the people they're trying to help.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that both the Jobseeker and JobKeeper payments will help many Australians economically affected by the virus, there are many who are falling through the gaps—and I'm not just talking about the $60 billion accounting error. Take, for example, one of my constituents who called me in April. He runs a business that employs six staff and subcontracts to live entertainment and catering. Naturally, his business was all but effectively halted. He, like many business owners, did not have the capital to pay all of these workers' salaries until JobKeeper allowances commenced, as it was paid in arrears. His only option was to obtain a commercial loan to cover the salary payments, which imposed additional costs in interest rates and other fees. In another example, a carpentry business in Werriwa had registered for the JobKeeper payment but felt the information they had to rely on was insufficient to make proper decisions. This business could not afford to pay the wages in advance, and that's why, I was told, they applied for the JobKeeper payment in the first place. It appears that the government set up the program without consideration for small businesses like this.
While, daily, I hear from honest, hardworking local business owners and people who find themselves unemployed about the delays in receiving payments, I'm also angered to hear of some of the rorts that have been going on. I've heard stories about businesses telling their employees they were going to retain part of the payment for administration purposes, and other stories where employees who had lost their job were allowed to return but only if the business retained part of the JobKeeper payment. Whilst I know there was a dob-in line, employees were concerned about recriminations if they did so. To rip off hardworking employees who need to put food on their table is just outrageous and un-Australian, but that's what happens when a program is unclear, overly complex for both government and participants of the program, and start dates were delayed so long that the only choice they had was to close.
In New South Wales, most nursing homes are still limiting the number of visitors that they are allowing. The aged-care system relies not only on those paid workers; it also relies heavily on volunteers and family members of those in care. These restrictions have meant that volunteers and family members have not been able to visit aged-care facilities to provide the level of assistance that the facility, the workers, the family members and the residents rely on. I heard from a constituent about the mental health challenges his loved one has had because of the lockdown and having little support. Further, with over 100,000 people waiting for support on the aged-care package list, isolating at home has further impacted their quality of life.
I've spoken previously in this place about the great impact that local government has had in my part of the world in south-western Sydney. I've spoken about council staff and the incredible contributions they make. But I'm deeply concerned that local councils are not eligible for the JobKeeper payment, which puts a further 40,000 jobs at risk right around our country. Councils maintain absolutely necessary social health and welfare services, so it really beggars belief that the government will not ensure these employees keep their jobs so that those services are maintained for the community. Keeping their jobs will also help our economy.
Unfortunately, due to the nature of social restrictions, the ability of charities to raise funds and continue providing necessary activities and services to our community has been destroyed, and the government needs to consider some sort of specific support for them. Close, lengthy proximity increases over the past months will only increase the chances of domestic violence and abuse in our community. This also means it's much harder for victims to get the help they need. The Sydney Women's Domestic Violence Court Advocacy Service has said that many people are suffering right now, but they can't make the call. I spoke recently to the Liverpool Women's Resource Centre, which has reported a large increase in requests and need for support. It has given out probably 50 per cent more food vouchers and hampers to those who have lost their job or are suffering domestic violence and have had to flee. In many circumstances, the workers have had to read between the line because the person that they were speaking to was talking to them in code because the perpetrator was in the house with them. We need to make sure these services can continue to do the extremely important work they do so that all Australians can get help when and if they need it. I fear that many victims out there are unable to make this call and, even if they can, they're unable to get the immediate help they need because of the lack of other housing options.
The government needs to understand that there are volunteer community groups and other organisations providing key and vital services to communities right round Australia, and the government needs to ensure that they support them so that they can continue their operations and support during this time and beyond. What these groups do takes so much demand away from government agencies. The groups contribute $129 billion into the Australian economy each year. I have no doubt that we needed to act quickly and I accept that, in the need to act quickly, gaps will emerge, but the gaps must be filled. When major cracks emerge in our society, it's more important than ever for those who fall through to be assisted.
I'd like to thank our community of Werriwa for the positive outlook they've had during this extremely challenging time. I've heard so many stories and received so many calls and emails about the great actions of so many—for example, local business owners who take food to those who are at risk and vulnerable; some of our charities who have been working nearly 24/7 to provide support; and also neighbours checking in on each other. While this is a challenging time for all of us, through all of this, our community and our country will grow stronger, and we may come out of it—let's hope—a more caring, understanding and positive community.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (11:31): Australia's collective response to the COVID-19 pandemic—Australia's greatest challenge in 75 years—is something that we should all be proud of. In terms of health outcomes, with 7,276 cases and 101 deaths, we're doing much better than many other countries. But we still have a long way to go. The world is still in this crisis, and this virus is still circulating. We must acknowledge how far we've come, but we have a long way to go. In the Hunter region, we have had no new cases in the last six weeks. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Health, the Department of Health, the Chief Medical Officer and the New South Wales Premier for this good outcome. I want to thank our frontline workers, particularly the staff of Hunter New England Health and our hospitals and doctors, who have made such an effort to protect our community.
I went to the Raymond Terrace Community Respiratory Clinic and got tested. It wasn't a pleasant experience; it stung! I want to thank Doctors Damien Wellborne and Sarah Bailey for their exemplary care. It was an uncomfortable but quick test, and it obviously came back negative. I want to thank them for setting up a professional practice that is helping many people in our community. And please keep getting tested. Don't just think it's okay; it's all over. If you feel unwell, go and get a test.
Whilst all Australians have had to sacrifice, the burden—let's face it—hasn't been shouldered equally. Those working on the front line and in the tourism, hospitality and the arts sectors have had the most job losses, and the businesses have been impacted the most. Women have disproportionately lost the most jobs, while taking on most of the caring and responsibilities at home. Many young people have lost their jobs. With their working lives ahead of them, they've been faced with that first sting of not being employed, and they're going to have to carry these economic cans for years to come. The costs of the decisions that we make right now in this place will be carried by those people.
Significant economic policies have been rolled out rapidly, with well over $200 billion in stimulus packages. Whilst this has supported many Australians, there are still many being locked out of really critically needed assistance. Labor has taken a constructive approach. We've identified gaps and delays and we've called for action where it's needed. As the months roll on, this government must do more to help those who are in need of assistance.
Child care has rightfully taken its place under this harsh spotlight during the crisis. Many years of bad child-care policy has created a broken and expensive child-care system. The crisis has exposed the neglect of this government of the next generation of Australians, through thoughtless and underfunded child-care policies. The Liberal and Nationals have overseen an increase in child-care costs by 34 per cent since they were first elected. This has been compounded by a rescue package that really has created winners and losers, at a time when we're all being told we're all in this together.
I held an emergency Zoom meeting with child-care and early education providers last month, and invited the shadow minister for early childhood education, Amanda Rishworth, to be part of that, so we could hear the issues firsthand that were being caused by these policy changes. These child-care providers made it clear that the only thing worse than the current COVID policy was snapping back to the old one. The COVID-19 rescue package has left parents without child-care spots they need and, conversely, educators without the work that they desire. How is that a great system? Now they're going to snap back to very expensive child-care fees whilst many families are still struggling financially. The Morrison government has a complete lack of understanding about the child-care and early childhood education sector. Many families are under financial strain right now, and adding sky-high child-care fees on top of this is unfair. Parents relying on JobKeeper for income couldn't afford fees for child-care rates before the pandemic and they're really struggling now.
Mr Deputy Speaker, might I just request that you conduct that conversation somewhere else? Excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, could I just ask that you conduct that conversation somewhere else? I'm really being quite distracted by the ongoing conversation, and I think this is a matter that does deserve and require your full attention. Thank you.
Many families are under financial strain right now, and adding sky-high childcare fees on top of that list is completely unfair. Parents relying on JobKeeper for income can't afford fees for child care at the rates before the pandemic, and the government's latest announcement on the transition fees goes to centres, not the parents. Parents looking at returning to work or increasing their hours, which we desperately need for our economy, will have to think about whether they can afford to. No-one should have to think about whether they can afford to go back to work or have their children adequately cared for and educated. Early educators on JobKeeper thought they at least had certainty until September, but now JobKeeper is being ripped out from under them in a few weeks. Providers are already struggling to keep their doors open. Going back to the old system of high fees risks lower attendance and revenue.
Here presents an opportunity to do something different, to build a better early education childcare system, one that works for every working parent. I plead with the government to do more to fix this childcare crisis, so that parents can get back to work and children can get that early education that we need to build a better country and build better citizens. In the long run, if you want to talk about the economy, it builds a far more prosperous economy as well.
This government must fix JobKeeper. We all said it was necessary and a good idea, but we know, being honest, that it was speedily rolled out. It is ridiculous that some people's casual income has doubled or tripled to $750 a week, whilst others have lost their income and are getting absolutely no support. JobKeeper does need to be better targeted. It's creating a big debt that we'll have to repay in the future, and it must be used to support critical industries. We on this side of the chamber know that that has to include education. This government really needs to come to terms with the value of education. For the life of me I can't understand why my free-market colleagues don't get this. From early education right through to university, our educators have been on the front line and not getting the assistance they need.
Whilst early educators are set to lose JobKeeper next month, university workers have been locked out of the program from the get-go. Today it was revealed that the brilliant University of Newcastle has climbed into the ranks of the world's top 200 universities. That is a fantastic thing. It's a regional university—it was started by the steelworkers at BHP—but it's under incredible pressure. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Newcastle, Professor Zelinsky, projected and told me last week that they're going to lose $46 million in fees for 2020. This is a well-run organisation. The University of Newcastle not only employs many people in our region but is a breeding ground for our brightest minds and, more importantly, best ideas. It's through collaboration with the university that local manufacturers were able to develop ventilators to help us tackle this virus. But the government is happy to expose them to the ill winds of the moment and cast them to those winds.
Universities need to be supported and treated decently, because they are the petri dish where we grow the cure for corona. It is no more basic than that. We need to be supporting them because fundamentally we need them. We need their bright ideas and we need their research. We need them for our future and we need them for our economy.
Another critical industry that has been overlooked is the arts. While everyone that has had the luxury of being able to do so can cocoon at home and perhaps catch up on Netflix or binge on whatever they want to binge on, we don't want to look after the people who are artistically creating this stuff that we rely on when we're cocooning. And small businesses, mum-and-dad businesses in my electorate are really suffering. I want to send a shout-out to all the businesses that completed my small business survey. We'll keep working for you and keep supporting you. (Time expired)
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (11:41): Today I'd like to begin by drawing attention to the impact of COVID-19 on regional coastal communities across Australia like mine on the Central Coast of New South Wales. These are communities built on the shoulders of tourism, retail, hospitality, construction and the service industries. These communities were hit hard when restrictions were introduced, and in these communities the road ahead to recovery is long and bumpy. We haven't all quarantined equally and we won't snap back to normal come September, when the last of the government's supports are wound back. In recent months Australia has faced ongoing drought, bushfires, floods and the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact has hit hard in regional and remote Australia. In late May the Grattan Institute released its job losses caused by COVID-19 report by electorate. My community saw a sharp fall of 5.7 per cent. Our local economy, as I mentioned, is built on hospitality, retail, tourism and construction. The impact of restrictions on small businesses and local jobs has been devastating. I've heard from families where both parents have lost their jobs on the same day. Danny of Norah Head works in gaming and his wife has her own graphic design business. They're both now on JobKeeper, and Danny tells me he can't see himself earning a normal wage for up to two years.
Far too many people have fallen through the cracks and missed out on support together. Around Australia up to 1.1 million casual workers will miss out on a wage subsidy and potentially be forced into the unemployment queue because the Morrison government has stuffed up on JobKeeper. They are young people like Ryan of Bateau Bay in my electorate. Ryan is a heart transplant recipient who lives with a daily regime of immuno-suppressant medication. Ryan strictly followed medical advice and quarantined at home, but his employer didn't meet the turnover test and he's too young to be considered independent, so he's relying on his parents to get by. I wrote to Minister Robert over a month ago on Ryan's behalf and I am still waiting for a response.
It was Labor who pushed for a wage subsidy when the government was stubbornly ruling it out. Then for weeks the Morrison government has been telling casuals and other excluded workers that the JobKeeper program was full, when in reality it was three million workers short. Thousands of hard-working young people like Ryan shouldn't miss out because the PM and Treasurer were wrong by three million workers and $60 billion.
As we face COVID-19, one group who have been doing it particularly tough in my electorate and across Australia are parents of children living with disability. The costs of NDIS programs have gone up, while face-to-face supports have fallen away, making life that much harder for these people and their families. Yet parents on carer payment have received very little additional financial support from the government as COVID-19 continues to unfold. These are parents like Karen, of Hamlyn Terrace in my electorate of Dobell, a mother to eight with seven still at home, four home schooled and two living with disabilities. Karen receives the carer payment and carer allowance and asks why she is now worse off than other single parents as we face COVID-19.
Parents like Karen deserve better from this government, as do those caring for the aged and others more vulnerable to COVID-19, who have found their responsibilities just that much harder with increasing social isolation. They've faced higher costs, shortages of essential items such as medicines and flu vaccines, and the very real fear of what will happen if their loved one catches COVID-19. Patrick, of Bateau Bay, called me. He has cared for his 91-year-old mother since his father, a war veteran, passed away 11 years ago. She's immobile and living with dementia. When not caring for his mum, Patrick volunteers at Lifeline and is undertaking a Certificate III in Alcohol and Other Drugs. He told me he feels that carers at the front line, like him, who are keeping older people safe, protecting them and keeping them out of our hospitals, are being disrespected. He asked why service providers can get a 10 per cent loading, while he struggles to get by and take care of his mum. He says, 'Carers for older Australians have been forgotten.' Carers like Patrick deserve better from this government.
The impact of this pandemic has not been shouldered equally. We don't all quarantine the same. This has been particularly true for women, with many finding themselves out of work at the same time as their caring responsibilities have grown. Across the board, we've already seen worrying evidence of this inequality, and sadly the Morrison government has only made it worse, not better. The first release of ABS data since COVID-19 showed not only that were women more likely to have lost their job after the emergence of COVID-19; they had also lost more wages than men in the same period. Sadly, many are now facing homelessness, and some are facing family violence. I spoke to a woman with a disability who had faced years of family violence and was at risk of losing her home—a home that had been modified to meet her specific needs. Women and children need more support, not less, as we face COVID-19.
It must be said that Australia's world-class healthcare system, underpinned by Medicare, has largely been the foundation of our success in the fight against COVID-19. But well before this pandemic reached our shores we'd been raising concerns that basic health care is becoming unaffordable and out of reach for many Australians. Medicare figures confirm what Australians already know: the out-of-pocket cost to see a doctor is higher than ever before. The government's own data shows that the average out-of-pocket cost to see a GP in my electorate of Dobell, on the New South Wales Central Coast, is $32.65, up over $7 since the Liberals were elected. The same is true for the cost of seeing a specialist. The average out-of-pocket cost to see a specialist in Dobell is now close to $90, up $28, or 50 per cent, since the Liberals were elected.
These costs, particularly as we face COVID-19, are pushing household budgets to breaking point. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the government's own experts, say that 1.3 million Australians a year delay or avoid Medicare services due to cost. That's worth repeating: in a country that prides itself on universal access to health care, over a million people each year can't afford basic health care. According to the ABS, 961,000 people a year delay or avoid taking prescribed medicines due to cost. As a pharmacist, and one who worked in our local public hospital for many years, I've seen the consequences of people delaying or avoiding essential treatment. What that means to them, their prognosis and their health outcomes, and what it means to our economy, is well understood and must be addressed. The rate of people skipping prescriptions is twice as high in the most disadvantaged areas as it is in the least disadvantaged areas, which means that the cost of medicines is contributing to health inequality in Australia today.
Mr Deputy Speaker Wilson, I now turn to mental health. I know it's something close to your heart. The Black Dog Institute's report Mental health ramifications of COVID-19 highlighted four groups at increased risk during an outbreak: people with pre-existing anxiety disorders and mental health problems; healthcare workers; people in quarantine; and people who are underemployed, unemployed or find themselves in casual work. As the COVID-19 pandemic reached Australian shores, we saw an immediate spike in demand for mental health support. In March, Lifeline answered almost 90,000 calls for help—calls taken by people like Patrick in my electorate—an increase of 25 per cent compared to the same period last year, or one call every 30 seconds. It was the highest call frequency in Lifeline's 57-year history. Black Dog saw a 30 per cent spike in contacts to their support service in the last two weeks of March. On some days, a third of contacts were COVID-19 related. A survey by Black Dog released in May found that 78 per cent of respondents reported that their mental health had been worse since COVID-19 and over 50 per cent of respondents were moderately to extremely worried about their financial situation.
We know the consequences of unemployment and financial distress and the mental health anguish they can cause. Suicide Prevention Australia's Turning the tide report, which was released in March, showed that well-established link between unemployment, financial distress and a crisis in mental health. People who are unemployed are nine times more likely than working people to take their own life. As hundreds of thousands of Australians have lost their jobs and businesses have folded, lives have been broken. People across Australia who are in financial distress and facing financial hardship deserve better from this government. Whilst we welcome the investment that they've made, there is still much more to be done, and it's urgent.
I would like to finish with some heartfelt thanks on behalf of my community. To the health professionals, from the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Nurse and Midwifery Officer through to the frontline staff in ICU and mental health, our hospital cleaners and those running COVID-19 testing centres: you've all done an outstanding job, often putting yourselves in harm's way. Your dedication and selflessness have meant Australia has avoided some of the devastation seen in other countries. To the retail workers, cleaners, transport workers, childcare workers and age and disability workers, who have gone to work so we can stay safely at home: thank you. An unfortunate truth is that many of these people are the worst paid and hardest-working Australians. I'd also like to acknowledge the Centrelink staff and give a shout-out to those at Wyong Hospital. (Time expired)
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (11:51): I'd like to start by thanking the healthcare workers, and their families, who, week after week, walked into the hospitals, the GP clinics and the testing centres never quite sure if it was the day that they would be overwhelmed, like their colleagues in Italy, the UK or the US. While Australia did flatten the curve, I cannot begin to imagine the toll that this has taken on our healthcare workers. I want to thank the Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, and his deputies, as well as South Australia's Chief Public Health Officer, Dr Nicola Spurrier, for their leadership and guidance in recent weeks. Their briefings quickly became part of our daily routine, and phrases such as 'flattening the curve' and 'social distancing' are now part of our Australian vernacular. I'd like to acknowledge the work of the state government and, in particular, our Premier, Steven Marshall, Minister Wade and Commissioner of Police, Grant Stevens. Premier Steven Marshall's mother said that he was born for this, and, can I say, his leadership has been extraordinary. Finally, I want to thank the community. It was in no small part due to the disciplined and determined approach to following the health advice and abiding by government restrictions that we were able to avoid the calamitous events which unfolded elsewhere, and are still unfolding, in the world.
Worldwide, more than seven million people have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and over 400,000 people are estimated to have died. The numbers are almost beyond comprehension. When they compare to our national and state data, we have been incredibly fortunate in this country, and that is because of our governments, both state and federal. In South Australia, there are currently no active cases of COVID-19 and it has been over two weeks since the last reported case. But I recognise that many families and friends have lost loved ones, only to have that loss compounded by their inability to grieve as they would wish due to the restrictions. For others, the physical separation has taken its toll. I was particularly concerned to hear from distressed family members who were, and some still are, repeatedly denied access to their families and friends in aged-care facilities.
I wish to thank the Aged Rights Advocacy Service for their assistance in helping older people and their family members to understand their rights and for working with residential aged-care providers to workshop solutions to the visitation restrictions. The staff at aged-care residences across our electorate worked hard to find new ways to ensure residents remain connected, including video calls and window visits. Adelaide Hills Council have launched their Cards for Kindness campaign where schoolchildren write postcards to residents in aged care. While this is a poor substitute for a hug or someone holding your hand or long chat over a pot of tea, it shows the capacity we have for kindness in the face of great uncertainty and fear. I have the oldest electorate by median age in South Australia, and that fear and concern was very much felt on our South Coast, which is also an area where we normally experience an enormous amount of tourism.
Our Mayo community has risen to the occasion and has faced the challenge with a great sense of camaraderie. For example, at the height of the pandemic buying, the local IGA at Mount Barker went above and beyond to ensure that those who needed essential supplies were always able to access them, including the Meadows out-of-hours school-care team. Each day, the Meadows OSH feeds between 10 and 15 children breakfast before school and another 30 tired and hungry students at the end of the school day, but, at the height of the pandemic, sourcing and buying the supplies they needed to feed the children was just impossible. In stepped Joe from the team at Mount Barker IGA, who not only supplied enough groceries for the remainder of the term but threw in Easter eggs too so the children could have an Easter egg hunt. In the words of Caroline G from the Meadows OSH, 'This action has made us reflect on our business choices of supplies. We are hoping to move very quickly to an account with Mount Barker IGA, locally owned. So much better for all of us.'
As we move out of the pandemic and to our next challenge, the economic recovery, we need to support our local businesses as they, too, adapt to a changing landscape. I'd like to mention a few businesses in my community that I think have done an extraordinary job of adapting. Prancing Pony and Sidewood Estate are two business that have been able to adapt and navigate a pathway through the restrictions. There are many others who will simply never reopen their doors. For many, the bushfires were a devastating blow, but it was COVID that stopped their recovery. I'd also like to mention Sylvia from Walls That Talk. She changed her business model. She used to make corporate wallpaper, but she moved to making COVID signage. My offices in Mount Barker and Victor Harbor have her COVIDSafe signage everywhere, on the floor and on the walls.
I'd also like to mention a local COVID relief fund. This is what community does. I, my state colleague, the member for Kaval, Dan Cregan, and one of our local mayors, Ann Ferguson, got together and realised that there would be people in our community who would be suffering. Perhaps they had very big mortgages, had never had interactions with Centrelink before and were really struggling to feed their children. We have had over 200 families every week accessing the pantry. We've come together to create a fund so that, with Rotary, we can put money in and can work with local businesses to have local takeaway meals in the deep freezer, as well as a range of fresh fruit and vegetables and dry goods. We're putting our personal money into this fund, but we know that many in our community who also have capacity to give are doing this. We're all caring and supporting each other, and that is what this is all about.
There is a light on the horizon. The clearest sign of life returning to normal is, surely, the return of the Showdown for South Australians and the announcement that 2,000 supporters can be cheering for our state's greatest rivalry. It's incredibly exciting for so many of us. Most importantly, though, local sport is coming back. I will be standing on the sidelines, with my gloves on, cheering with the rest of our community. We believe we'll be able to do that in July. We have each done our part to successfully flatten the curve, but I urge all members of our community to follow the health advice and health experts.
I would like to finish with a shout-out for a wonderful business called Quarter Mile Cafe. A gentleman named Dave makes soups and meals, no questions asked. If you need assistance, you just come in and get some soup for your family. He has made thousands of litres of soup. I've personally dropped off some pumpkins from our garden just to help out with his soup. He's doing an extraordinary job. It's all these people in our community, all these heroes in our community, who have made our community come through what has been a devastating time for many.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12:00 to 16:01
COMMITTEES
Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Report
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House take note of the report.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (16:01): Yesterday, the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, of which I am a member, handed down the inquiry report Trade transformation: supporting Australia's export and investment opportunities. I want to acknowledge and thank the chair, George Christensen, the committee secretariat and the rest of the committee for the excellent work that went into this report.
The inquiry heard from witnesses across the full range of Australia's export industries. It reiterated that Australia is an export nation. In 2018-19 exports reached almost $470 billion, or 24 per cent of our GDP. It noted that while our resource exports remain strong, we have a growing opportunity to build on our service exports. Currently, these account for one-fifth of Australia's exports. We heard of Australia's strength in the higher education sector, which is our fourth-biggest export. We also heard of our emerging strengths in other services including health; professional and financial services, often called 'fintech'; and travel. However, it also identified a need for diversification.
The Export Council's submission described Australia's exports as 'too small' and 'too concentrated'. We export from a small number of businesses, sell a small number of commodities, and those sales are disproportionately geared for one market. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought home this issue. We need to rapidly open up export opportunities for a post-COVID global economy. In particular, the report recommended the government investigate ways of encouraging the growth of our non-resource sector. This was noted in recommendation No. 20, which recommends that health as an export, and in particular telehealth and clinical trials, presents a real opportunity for Australia. Recommendation No. 1 recommends the attractive construct of the Biomedical Translation Fund, and suggests this model for updating our trade and investment strategy.
The committee heard that international health is where education was 20 to 30 years ago. We are on the cusp of an exciting opportunity to take our health expertise to international markets through services such as telehealth, clinical trials, and medical education and training. In particular, recommendation No. 3 of the report identified significant bureaucratic barriers to increasing our clinical trials capability due to our federated healthcare system, and requirement to get state by state regulatory approval for multicentre trials. There is an urgency to deal with this issue so that Australia can take advantage of our low COVID environment.
There have been many pivots to grasp from the COVID crisis. One of the great developments to arise from the COVID pandemic has been the rapid expansion of telehealth services here in Australia. The expanded use of telehealth will undoubtedly be a feature of post-COVID health care here in Australia. It also has the potential to form part of a more diversified and digitally based post-COVID economy.
Telehealth was used to deliver convenient, cost-effective and real-time health care to people across the country, particularly for those located in regional, rural and remote areas. It guarantees that a patient from Tallangatta has the same access to quality health care as a patient from Toorak. Likewise, it means the metropolitan based patient doesn't have to wrestle with traffic congestion to get to a quick check-up across town. It has been critical to patient and doctor safety during the pandemic, and has helped protect our critical PPE supply. At its core, telehealth is about driving greater efficiency in healthcare delivery, which delivers on consumer productivity. Who wants to take off half a day to get a health check when you can now dial into your doctor from your desk at work?
Members of the government, including myself, have long been of the view that increasing our telehealth services is a valuable investment. The COVID-19 pandemic has streamlined this. The expansion of telehealth services that would have otherwise taken 10 years was, instead, achieved in just 10 days. The government introduced a $669 million whole-of-population telehealth primary healthcare program. This involved opening up telehealth and telephone Medicare Benefits Schedule items to all Australians, and doubling the bulk-billing incentive for GPs. More than nine million services have been provided to date.
Geographically, we are ideally placed to seize this opportunity. The cultural diversity of our medical profession is also well suited to the challenge of implementing international health. It is critical that in the post-COVID world that we look to ahead we should modernise our economy and play to our strengths. The rapid expansion of telehealth services has been a valuable asset for Australia, and could also be mutually beneficial for our friends in the Asia-Pacific region. Our health sector provides unique training opportunities. Australia is well positioned to become a world leader in health services export built on an excellent reputation and internationally recognised outcomes for health.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:07): Free trade is under fire. We've seen a massive increase in the number of protectionist measures around the world and significant pressure being placed on the global trading system. It's critical to realise the value that openness has played in building the modern Australian economy. Australia's trade barriers were brought down largely by successive Labor governments: the 25 per cent tariff cut by Gough Whitlam in 1973, and the significant tariff cuts in 1988 and 1991 by the Hawke government. The process of trade liberalisation delivered significant competitiveness into the Australian economy and ensured that we created many more jobs. It improved living standards for many Australian households. As the ANU's Adam Triggs has already pointed out, compared with a decade ago—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rick Wilson ): Order! Can we just keep it down a little bit. It's distracting the member who is speaking.
Dr LEIGH: audio-visual and computing equipment is 72 per cent cheaper, cars are 12 per cent cheaper, toys and games are 18 per cent cheaper and clothes are 14 per cent cheaper. Trade has stretched household budgets further for low- and middle-income Australian households, but the rise in protectionist measures does threaten many of these gains. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff might not have caused the Great Depression, but it certainly acted to exacerbate the duration of the crisis. There is, again, a risk that rising protectionism around the world will do the same. We're already seeing significant trade tensions between the United States and China, but that's just one context in which trade conflicts are becoming worse in the current environment. Trade, along with immigration and foreign investment, has been critical to Australia's prosperity. Australia is a country that has chosen openness. It's been a deliberate policy choice, largely supported by both sides of this House, and one which has improved Australia's growth rate. But all of that could easily come to an end if we are to succumb to the siren song of protectionism and to close off trade. As Adam Triggs has pointed out, some have suggested that a national 'Buy Australian' campaign could fully compensate for our trade. He calls this a 'laughable' proposition, pointing out that more than 70 per cent of our agricultural production is exported. More than 25 per cent of our tourism industry relies on international tourists, to say nothing, as he points out, of universities and mining.
The same effect is seen in foreign investment. As we well know, Australia has traditionally had one of the highest current account deficits in the world—the fifth-largest current account deficit in the world recently—and still we receive significant amounts of foreign investment, although the increase in our existing superannuation pool means that we're now both an outbound foreign investor, in order to manage risks for Australian investors, whilst still accepting significant amounts of inbound foreign investment. Inbound foreign investment accounts for about one dollar in nine of total investment, so a complete shut-off of foreign investment would mean a one-ninth decrease of total investment in Australia. That would have massively adverse implications for investment in the manufacturing industry, in roads, bridges, ports. Light rail projects have been backed by foreign investment, and they have benefited Australians, raising living standards and increasing jobs.
There's also a national security benefit to this. When foreign investors, be they American, Chinese or Japanese, invest in our Australian economy, they have a stake in our success. They have a stronger interest in the Australian economy doing well when they're a part of it. As Adam Triggs pointed out in a piece in The Canberra Times recently, for many years Indonesia imposed restrictions on Australia's beef exports, but after Indonesian companies invested in Australia's beef industry the Indonesian government's incentive to restrict imports was significantly reduced. As he put it, suddenly, Indonesia had 'skin in the game'. Suddenly, they had an interest in the Australian beef export sector doing well.
We can understand the concerns over openness. This is, after all, a pandemic which came from overseas. But simply to take the view that when we're faced with a pandemic from overseas we should immediately roll up the drawbridges and shut off our engagement with the world would be to learn the wrong lessons. Past pandemics have shown that often the solutions will come from overseas. I agree with the previous speaker, who spoke about the importance of clinical trials. Labor took a policy on improving clinical trials to the last election. It is absolutely vital we do more of them. The major clinical trials now aren't occurring in a single country. The typical major clinical trial is an international trial. We have massive globalisation of this sector, and it's in our interests to be part of that globalisation.
Our universities are engaged with the rest of the world. Nobel laureate and now ANU Vice-Chancellor Brian Schmidt said that perhaps nowhere else could he have done his path-breaking research which earnt him a Nobel Prize, because his research group was so internationally connected. Temporary migration plays an important part in our universities, not just with students but also faculty. Flowing to and from our universities, that exchange of ideas makes our universities significantly more productive.
We're already seeing challenges to equity through both trade and technology, but too often the impact of technology is blamed on trade. As Tim Harcourt mentioned recently, artificial intelligence and robotics have already been changing the nature of work in manufacturing, and he points out that that effect is only likely to continue. But we need to be cautious of not blaming the impact on employment that occurs as a result of technological shifts on our openness to trade. Yes, trade has an impact, but technology is the larger factor.
How are we going to be affected in terms of our exports by the current crisis? We've seen a massive hit to tourism and a massive hit to the university sector. Rocks and crops have remained steady, and overseas steel production has held up, meaning that our iron ore has maintained. But there's certainly a risk in the future that we might see further protectionist measures that would adversely affect Australia.
Jeffrey Wilson from the Perth USAsia Centre has pointed out the importance of maintaining foreign investment in the current context. He's pointed out that a shutdown of foreign investment would particularly affect our resources, manufacturing and real estate sectors. He's highlighted the fact that in 2018 there was $3.5 trillion of accumulated foreign investment in Australia, and that Australian firms held $2.5 trillion of assets abroad. So foreign investment flows go both ways. We benefit as superannuation investors from foreign investment, but we can hardly expect that, if we turn off foreign investment for overseas investors, it will continue to be possible for Australian superannuation funds to get the benefit of diversification that comes through foreign investment.
Finally, it would be remiss of me to end a speech on trade without referring to the extraordinary export rorts revelations that have been reported by David Crowe in the Nine Fairfax papers today. We have seen fully 97 per cent of the money go to coalition electorates. That is, in round 1 of the program, some $4.3 million went to coalition electorates, compared to $140,000 to Labor electorates. Now what the government is saying is: 'Well, that's okay! Sure, we pork barrelled 97 per cent before the election, but after the election we ran another program, and that program was broadly 50-50, so it's okay.' This is a bit like saying, 'Well, you did an illegal tackle on the field, but after the final bell rang, you went and gave the bloke a hug.' I mean, the fact is that this was a rort during the election campaign, and no second round after the election makes up for the malfeasance that occurred in this program. It deserves a thorough inquiry. Australians have a right to know why this export grants program was used for partisan pork barrelling. (Time expired)
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:17): I'd like to thank to member for Fenner for his contribution and for reminding me of our rocks and crops. There's plenty of mining up in the Territory, and we want to do more and more agriculture, as you're well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker. We all know that it was on the proverbial sheep's back that Australia's wealth was made, as well as on the back-breaking work of the tough men and women who made that industry. But it was also on the back of cows and cattle farmers, agriculture, wine, wine growers, iron ore, coal and natural gas, the miners, the engineers, the truckies, LNG carrier workers, and the many more professionals that have made these industries so productive and enriching for Australia. That's only when we think of goods that are being dug up, farmed, cultivated and exported to the world, competing with economic giants half a nation away. We're often dominating markets by the quality of our goods and our professional people.
Thanks to Australia's economic opening—mainly by Labor governments, it must be said—this trade transformation contributed massively to the decades of uninterrupted growth that we've enjoyed. It was these macroeconomic settings put in place by visionary economic decision-making and nation building that allowed what became known as the terms of trade boom between roughly 2005 and 2011, on the back of those high commodity prices.
Another transformation in the Australian economy has been our transition to a very large services exporter, not least of which is our export of education and training in our university and TAFE systems. I reflect on conversations being had about this with experts around Monash University that'll be starting up in Indonesia in the near future. But thanks to this transformation and to the technological revolutions that have allowed it, many of our unis have managed to transition rapidly to online learning environments during the COVID-19 crisis to avoid the worst-case scenario. Of course, not all were so lucky, and the reliance of certain Group of Eight universities on international students has raised legitimate questions, I think, within the sector itself about the resilience against external shocks like we've seen with COVID-19.
Higher education is just another example of how important international trade has become to the Australian economy. The university sector supports about 240,000 Australian jobs, and a big whack of jobs in my electorate, in Darwin. It's actually now our fourth-largest export earner, and we're talking about around $40 billion a year. It's absolutely massive. At a time when our universities are in crisis, it has beggared belief that the Australian government has turned its back on the thousands of Australian jobs that are likely to be lost if this sector continues on the path that it's on. I'm sure honourable members are aware that university employees haven't been able to access JobKeeper, for example. We are talking about 21,000 jobs in the sector being cut if we keep on this track, and a $19 billion drop in overseas student revenue. That money the overseas students bring to Australia is spent on research in our universities and on teaching for all the students, including the Aussie students; not just those overseas students.
It is fair to say that international trade, in all its shapes and sizes, has made a large and even dominant contribution to Australian economic growth in past decades. This is thanks, as we have seen, to Australia's economic opening. Of course, this opening hasn't always been perfectly successful. We can, and should, regret that key manufacturing and industrial capabilities have been lost, often sacrificed by federal governments that tended to drink too much Kool Aid and believe economic globalisation had no costs or losers. I think it's fair to say that in the middle of the national COVID crisis we woke up to the painful reality, decades too late, that we had traded off key assets of our sovereignty and self-reliance in an unthinking search for economic efficiencies and a balanced budget.
There's been a lot of soul searching about how much self-sufficiency we want to have, how much heavy manufacturing we want to have here. We obviously need to be making our own PPE. We still want to attract foreign investment, tourists and students, which we need, but we shouldn't look at it only on our terms, because the result of that would be, predictably, disastrous. We can't have it our own way every day. Our economy benefits disproportionately from trading rules which we helped to build and whose observance continues to be in our national interest. As the member for Fenner said, we need to avoid the push to become more and more protectionist. We must find a balance, what's smart for our economy.
COVID-19 laid bare the excesses of Australia's deindustrialisation, which traded off self-reliance and resilience in vital sectors like fuel security, the production of pharmaceuticals, manufacturing and emergency stockpiling. The point about fuel security is an important one. We've had some positive discussions in recent times about the need to diversify our storage and, more importantly, to have our storage on Australian soil. Because of COVID-19, surely now we have a national consensus that these just-in-time supply lines, though they are incredibly efficient and do drive down prices—at Woolies, for example—come with built-in risks that we have to manage, not just worsen by shutting ourselves off from the world? A very much justified call for greater self-reliance can't give way to a populist attempt to shut us off from the currents of global economic growth and investment. That's what's protectionism would do. In short, we'd be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
This is the kind of trade-off that we'll need to manage intelligently in the coming months and years. Getting the dial right between the extremes of total reliance on the world and total self-reliance will be an ongoing national project. This project goes far beyond politics. It's important. It's not just about what we find in the IGA aisle but whether we want to be the sort of country that feeds the world but has no food security. Do we want to be a country that has a world-leading medical system but not enough face masks to protect us from deadly smoke, and sneezes and coughs? We don't want to be a country that fuels global economic growth but whose own tanks—fuel storage, as I said—are empty in peacetime. And it would be disastrous if they were empty in wartime. We don't want to be a country that educates South-East Asia's elites while our own literacy, numeracy, university rankings and Asia literacy slide.
As we balance diverse needs and make measured judgements on trade, trade itself can, and will, be our economic saviour. As the shadow trade minister, Madeleine King, has written:
There have always been good reasons for Australia to pursue sovereign industrial capabilities. Labor has long argued the case for lifting local manufacturing capacity that complements and builds on our comparative advantages.
Debate adjourned.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 16:28
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Human Rights
(Question No. 342)
Mr Leeser asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, in writing, on 05 March 2020:
Since 4 January 2012 when the Human Rights Parliamentary Scrutiny Act 2011 commenced:(1) How many officers in your department have worked on human rights compatibility statements.(2) How many human rights compatibility statements have been issued.(3) What is the APS level of staff who have worked on these statements and what is the salary range of each of those levels.(4) Approximately how many hours of staff time has been spent preparing compatibility statements and responding to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.(5) What is the estimated cost to your department of producing compatibility statements, over the period January 2012 to present.(6) What is the estimated annual cost of producing human rights compatibility statements.(7) On how many occasions has the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sought a response from your department about the human rights compatibility statements prepared by your department.(8) On how many occasions has this resulted in changes to the legislation presented by your department, and can details be provided of any changes that have been made.
Mrs Andrews: The response to the honourable member's question is below:
(1) How many officers in your department have worked on human rights compatibility statements.
My department does not keep records that would allow the ready identification of the number of officers who have worked on individual human rights compatibility statements.
Human rights compatibility statements are drafted by officers in the policy area responsible for the relevant legislation. The APS level of the drafting officers may range from graduate to Executive Level. The draft statements are reviewed by legislation and legal officers in my department. Consultation may also be undertaken on a statement outside of my department, for example, with the Human Rights Unit in the Attorney-General's Department. Finalised statements are reviewed and cleared at the SES level prior to submission to me for approval.
(2) How many human rights compatibility statements have been issued.
During 2017, 2018 and 2019, 74 human rights compatibility statements have been issued for legislation (including legislative instruments) administered by the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (or its predecessors). The research involved to answer this question for additional years would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources.
(3) What is the APS level of staff who have worked on these statements and what is the salary range of each of those levels.
The APS level staff that may work on a statement can range from preparation at the graduate level through to review and clearance by the responsible SES officer.
My department's Enterprise Agreement for 2019-2022, which applies to APS and Executive Level employees and specifies salary levels, can be accessed on my department's website (https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/enterprise-agreement-2019-2022).
(4) Approximately how many hours of staff time has been spent preparing compatibility statements and responding to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Answering this question would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. My department does not hold data that could identify the hours of staff time spent preparing human rights compatibility statements and responding to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Quantifying the number of hours that staff time may be spent on a statement would depend on a number of factors, including the level and experience of officers, the number of staff working on the statement, and the complexity of the statement. Simple statements that do not engage any human rights are less resource-intense than a complex statement which addresses a number of human rights and requires a detailed assessment.
(5) What is the estimated cost to your department of producing compatibility statements, over the period January 2012 to present.
Answering this question would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. My department does not hold data that would readily identify the estimated cost of producing compatibility statements.(6) What is the estimated annual cost of producing human rights compatibility statements.
Answering this question would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. My department does not hold data that would allow identification of the estimated annual cost of producing compatibility statements.
(7) On how many occasions has the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sought a response from your department about the human rights compatibility statements prepared by your department.
During 2017, 2018 and 2019 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sought a response from my department on one occasion, in relation to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018.(8) On how many occasions has this resulted in changes to the legislation presented by your department, and can details be provided of any changes that have been made.
None. The response provided by the then Minister for Resources and Northern Australia satisfied the committee that the measures in the Bill were likely to be compatible with human rights. Accordingly, it was not necessary to make changes to the legislation.
Human Rights
(Question No. 343)
Mr Leeser asked the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, in writing, on 5 March 2020:
Since 4 January 2012 when the Human Rights Parliamentary Scrutiny Act 2011 commenced:(1) How many officers in your department have worked on human rights compatibility statements.(2) How many human rights compatibility statements have been issued.(3) What is the APS level of staff who have worked on these statements and what is the salary range of each of those levels.(4) Approximately how many hours of staff time has been spent preparing compatibility statements and responding to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.(5) What is the estimated cost to your department of producing compatibility statements, over the period January 2012 to present.(6) What is the estimated annual cost of producing human rights compatibility statements.(7) On how many occasions has the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sought a response from your department about the human rights compatibility statements prepared by your department.(8) On how many occasions has this resulted in changes to the legislation presented by your department, and can details be provided of any changes that have been made.
Mr Taylor: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) How many officers in your department have worked on human rights compatibility statements.
My department does not keep records that would allow the ready identification of the number of officers who have worked on individual human rights compatibility statements.
Human rights compatibility statements are drafted by officers in the policy area responsible for the relevant legislation. The APS level of the drafting officers may range from graduate to Executive Level. The draft statements are reviewed by legislation and legal officers in my department. Consultation may also be undertaken on a statement outside of my department, for example, with the Human Rights Unit in the Attorney-General's Department. Finalised statements are reviewed and cleared at the SES level prior to submission to me for approval.
(2) How many human rights compatibility statements have been issued.
During 2017, 2018 and 2019, 74 human rights compatibility statements have been issued for legislation (including legislative instruments) administered by the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (or its predecessors). The research involved to answer this question for additional years would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources.
(3) What is the APS level of staff who have worked on these statements and what is the salary range of each of those levels.
The APS level staff that may work on a statement can range from preparation at the graduate level through to review and clearance by the responsible SES officer.
My department's Enterprise Agreement for 2019-2022, which applies to APS and Executive Level employees and specifies salary levels, can be accessed on my department's website (https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/enterprise-agreement-2019-2022).
(4) Approximately how many hours of staff time has been spent preparing compatibility statements and responding to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Answering this question would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. My department does not hold data that could identify the hours of staff time spent preparing human rights compatibility statements and responding to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Quantifying the number of hours that staff time may be spent on a statement would depend on a number of factors, including the level and experience of officers, the number of staff working on the statement, and the complexity of the statement. Simple statements that do not engage any human rights are less resource-intense than a complex statement which addresses a number of human rights and requires a detailed assessment.
(5) What is the estimated cost to your department of producing compatibility statements, over the period January 2012 to present.
Answering this question would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. My department does not hold data that would readily identify the estimated cost of producing compatibility statements.(6) What is the estimated annual cost of producing human rights compatibility statements.
Answering this question would involve a substantial and unreasonable diversion of resources. My department does not hold data that would allow identification of the estimated annual cost of producing compatibility statements.
(7) On how many occasions has the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sought a response from your department about the human rights compatibility statements prepared by your department.
During 2017, 2018 and 2019 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sought a response from my department on one occasion, in relation to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018.(8) On how many occasions has this resulted in changes to the legislation presented by your department, and can details be provided of any changes that have been made.
None. The response provided by the then Minister for Resources and Northern Australia satisfied the committee that the measures in the Bill were likely to be compatible with human rights. Accordingly, it was not necessary to make changes to the legislation.
Questions Without Notice: JobKeeper Payment
Mr Stephen Jones asked the Treasurer on 12 May 2020:
How many Australians are now earning more than their normal wage because they're receiving the JobKeeper subsidy of $1,500 per fortnight?
Mr Frydenberg: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
Dear Clerk
On 12 May 2020, I took a question on notice during Question Time from the Member for Whitlam regarding the number of Australians who are now earning more than their normal wage because they are receiving the Jobkeeper subsidy of $1,500 per fortnight.
I am advised that the data the Member has requested is not available.
This has also been confirmed by the Treasury in response to a question asked by the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 on 8 May and by the Finance Minister in response to a question asked in the other place on 12 May 2020.
I have copied this letter to the Leader of the House, the Hon Christian Porter MP, and the Member for Whitlam.
Yours sincerely
THE HON JOSH FRYDENBERG MP
10/6/2020