The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:01): I present the 15th report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament, comprising three petitions and 43 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
PETITIONS
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:01): I present the following petitions:
Falun Gong
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that Falun Gong is a peaceful meditation practice based on the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance. Millions of Falun Gong practitioners in China have been fired, jailed, tortured or killed by the Chinese Communist regime since July 1999. There have been persistent reports of systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience in China, primarily practitioners of Falun Gong. The Independent China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, concluded in its Final Judgement in 2019: "Forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been one - and probably the main - source of organ supply" and that crimes against humanity against Falun Gong have been proved "beyond reasonable doubt".
We therefore ask the House to request the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Australian Government to: 1. Pass a motion or make a statement to openly request an immediate end to the 20-year persecution of Falun Gong in China and the immediate release of all Falun Gong practitioners and other prisoners of conscience; 2. Urge China to immediately end the practice of organ harvesting from all prisoners of conscience and conduct a thorough public education campaign to ensure Australians do not unknowingly participate in forced organ harvesting in China; 3. Deny visas and bar entry to Chinese officials and policeman who are involved in the persecution of Falun Gong.
From 626 citizens (PN0480)
Higher Education
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
That if the job ready graduates Package that has been proposed by the federal government passes, course fees for humanities, law, economics, fine arts and communications degrees will increase. There will also be less overall government funding per student at universities. While we support decrease of some university fees, this is unacceptable if it comes at the cost of access to many opportunities and quality university education.
AS Tasmanians, this will unfairly impact our state, with already lower levels of education and the lowest median weekly income in Australia. Tasmania only has one university which has already experienced 75% course cuts this year due to stretched resources. We are concerned that Tasmanians will have even fewer options to consider for their future. This will particularly effect those in rural areas and from lower socio-economic backgrounds who already struggle to access education.
We are also concerned with potential university staff job cuts and the damage to this sector. We worry that this bill suggests that the government does not believe that education is an enriching public good, only a training program.
We therefore ask the House to:
1. Vote against increasing any university course fees.
2. Vote against cuts to funding to those courses where the student contribution fee is set to decrease.
3. Increase university funding in response to the many challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
From 170 citizens (PN0481)
World Heritage Areas
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: The need for the Federal government with NSW State government to recognize the World Heritage status of the Parramatta Female Factory and apply to UNESCO for World Heritage status for this site, access for all Australians and appropriate governance
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to enable the site:
1. To be declared a site of world heritage significance by nominating it as a World Heritage Site to the World Heritage Committee secretariat of UNESCO;
2. To become a living museum and national resource centre;
3. To be managed by a joint Federal and State government trust with the expertise to conserve and interpret the site in accordance with the guidelines of the Burra Charter
From 10558 citizens (PN0482)
Petitions received.
PETITIONS
Responses
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:01): I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:
Brunei: Human Rights
Dear Mr O'Dowd
I refer to correspondence from your predecessor, Mr Llew O'Brien MP, of 9 September 2019 regarding petition EN0911 on Brunei's declaration of homosexuality as a crime punishable by stoning to death. I regret the delay in responding.
The Australian Government is strongly opposed to the severe punishments, including death by stoning, which came into force on 3 April 2019 under Brunei's Syariah Penal Code. I have previously expressed to my Bruneian counterpart Australia's strong opposition to these punishments, most recently during my visit to Brunei in February 2020, and urged Brunei to reconsider their implementation. Australia has raised this matter in several international fora, including the UN Human Rights Council. Our High Commission in Brunei regularly reiterates our concerns with Bruneian officials and will continue to do so.
In response to our representations and those of other members of the international community, in May 2019 the Sultan of Brunel announced a de facto moratorium on the death penalty, pledged to ratify the UN Convention against Torture, and committed his government to respect the privacy of individuals. We consider this an important indication of Brunei's commitment to upholding its international human rights obligations, and we continue to encourage Brunei to take further steps to improve its human rights situation.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, SenatorPayne
Assange, Mr Julian
Dear Mr O'Dowd
I refer to correspondence from your predecessor, Mr Llew O'Brien MP, of 10 September 2019 enclosing Petition EN0919 that asks the House of Representatives to support
Mr Julian Assange's freedom of speech and to protect Mr Assange against extradition to the United States (US). I regret the delay in responding.
The Australian Government takes its consular role very seriously. We are monitoring Mr Assange's circumstances very closely, just as we do for other Australian citizens in detention overseas, and affording him the attention we would to any Australian in similar circumstances.
I can confirm that the Australian Government has continued to seek assurances about Mr Assange's health and welfare. I specifically raised Mr Assange's circumstances and the conditions under which he is held, during my meeting with UK Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Dominic Raab, earlier this year (6 March 2020). In addition, our officials, including High Commissioner Brandis, have engaged regularly with the UK Government, to ensure Mr Assange's welfare is appropriately safeguarded and that he has sufficient access to both medical and legal advice. All our representations to the UK Government have consistently been met with confirmation that Mr Assange is held in appropriate and humane conditions in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh, and that he has regularly benefited from access to the full prison regime of medical and legal support.
Australia has no standing to intervene in Mr Assange's legal matters or extradition proceedings. These are entirely a matter between the United Kingdom (UK) and US governments. That said, it is the Australian Government's position that Mr Assange is entitled to due process in the legal proceedings he faces. As I have stated on a number of occasions, Australia expects the legal systems of both the UK and the US to deliver on this. I can assure you that we will continue to provide consular support to Mr Assange for as long as he needs it.
I should be grateful if you could convey this response to your Committee's members. Yours sincerely
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
Hong Kong
Dear Chair
I refer to correspondence from your predecessor, Mr Llew O'Brien MP, regarding a petition (EN0957) requesting that the House of Representatives respond to the situation in Hong Kong.
Australia holds deep concerns about the situation in Hong Kong and Beijing's recent imposition of a national security law, which threatens to further undermine confidence in Hong Kong's autonomy and the One Country, Two Systems framework.
On 9 July, in response to the new law, Australia took steps to suspend our Extradition Agreement with Hong Kong. The national security law constitutes a fundamental change of circumstances in respect to our Extradition Agreement with Hong Kong. As a result, we no longer consider the treaty's operation tenable in these circumstances.
We updated our travel advice to Hong Kong to reflect the increased risks facing Australians travelling, living and working in Hong Kong. These arise from vague definitions of new national security crimes, the possibility of transfer or deportation to mainland China, and uncertainty over how the laws will be implemented.
We have also introduced new visa arrangements for all temporary graduates and skilled workers from Hong Kong who want to work and live in Australia, to ensure their human rights and freedoms are upheld.
Hong Kong's autonomy should be safeguarded and the human rights and freedoms of its people upheld, as guaranteed under international law and the Basic Law. Australia supports the right to peaceful protest.
Australia has a substantial stake in Hong Kong's success. The city is home to our largest commercial presence in Asia and one of our biggest expatriate communities globally.
We will continue to work with international partners to closely monitor developments in Hong Kong.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
Hong Kong
Dear Chair
I refer to correspondence from your predecessor, Mr Llew O'Brien MP, regarding a petition (EN1029) requesting the House of Representatives consider actions to highlight the suppression of protests in Hong Kong.
The Australian Government shares your concern over the violence in Hong Kong and the increasing divide between the authorities and people of Hong Kong.
Australia has consistently urged all parties to find an effective political solution that supports and upholds Hong Kong's freedoms and advantages, an open and accountable law enforcement, and the professional and unbiased application of justice. We have continued to raise our concerns publicly including at the most recent United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in July.
We are particularly concerned about Beijing's imposition of a national security law on Hong Kong in June. This law threatens to further undermine confidence in Hong Kong's autonomy and the One Country, Two Systems framework.
We have taken several measures in response. This includes taking steps to suspend our Extradition Agreement with Hong Kong, updating our travel advice to reflect the increased risks facing Australians travelling, living and working in Hong Kong, and introducing new visa arrangements for all temporary graduates and skilled workers from Hong Kong who want to work and live in Australia, to ensure their human rights and freedoms are upheld.
Hong Kong's autonomy should be safeguarded and the human rights and freedoms of its people upheld, as guaranteed under international law and the Basic Law. Australia supports the right to peaceful protest.
Australia has a substantial stake in Hong Kong's success. The city is home to our largest commercial presence in Asia and one of our biggest expatriate communities globally.
We will continue to work with international partners to closely monitor developments in Hong Kong.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
West Papua
Dear Chair
I refer to correspondence from your predecessor, Mr Llew O'Brien, of 25 November 2019 regarding petition EN1103 on Indonesia's Papua provinces. I regret the delay in responding.
Australia has long recognised Indonesia's sovereignty over the two Papua provinces. This is a bipartisan position in Australia, underlined by the 2006 Lombok Treaty between Australia and Indonesia and our bilateral Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. Indonesian sovereignty is also widely recognised by the international community.
I have carefully noted the petition and am able to advise you that Australia has no plan to request the UN to declare the 1969 Act of Free Choice invalid.
The Australian Government condemns all violence in the Papua provinces. Our message to the Indonesian Government is clear — the rights of all its citizens should be upheld and credible allegations of human rights abuses should be investigated. Australian Embassy officials visit the Papua provinces regularly and engage a wide range of contacts, including civil society, NGOs and religious leaders. We will continue to monitor the situation in Papua and to engage further with Indonesia on how fundamental rights can be upheld.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
People's Republic of China
Dear Chair
I refer to correspondence from your predecessor, Mr Llew O'Brien MP, regarding a petition (EN1120) requesting that Australia give diplomatic recognition to Taiwan.
In 1972, Australia established diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (PRC). In doing so, we recognise the government of the PRC as China's sole legal government, and acknowledge the position of the PRC that Taiwan is a part of China. Australia remains committed to our one-China policy. This is distinct from China's 'one-China principle', which specifies that Taiwan is a province of China.
While we do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, we maintain strong economic and people-to-people links. We have much in common, including our democratic values.
Australia regularly engages with Taiwan unofficially. We have consistently and strongly supported Taiwan's practical participation in international organisations, including the World Health Organization. Where statehood is a requirement for membership of an organisation, we support Taiwan's participation as an observer or guest.
Taiwan is a vibrant and flourishing democracy, and an important economic partner. Australia looks forward to continuing to work with Taiwan to advance our trade and investment cooperation, education, science and research links, as well as our people-to-people links, which are strong and growing.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
Economy
Dear Chair
I refer to correspondence from your predecessor, Mr Llew O'Brien MP, of 11 February 2020 regarding Petition Number EN1132, which seeks to suspend the Australian Government's international development program to enable the repayment of Government debt. I regret the delay in responding.
These are extraordinary times for Australia, and I assure the signatories to the petition that protecting Australia and Australians is the Government's highest priority.
The Australian Government's official development assistance (ODA) represented less than one per cent of the total 2019-20 Budget released by the Government on 2 April 2019. Australia's security, prosperity and stability is dependent upon working in partnership with our neighbours to minimise the human, economic and social costs of COVID-19, and chart a course to economic recovery.
Our international development program is targeted, effective and necessary. Australia benefits when countries are well governed and able to achieve strong and sustainable economic growth. Working with our regional partners to combat the spread of COVID-19 and manage the economic fallout is an important part of protecting Australia and Australians. How our region responds to, and recovers from the pandemic directly affects Australia's national interests. If transmission rates are not controlled, our own health security could be compromised. If the region does not recover and open up, our own economic recovery could be affected, including the one in five Australian jobs that depend on trade. Partnerships for Recovery: Australia's COVID-19 Development Response Strategy sets out how the development program will contribute to a stable, prosperous and resilient Indo-Pacific in the wake of COVID-19.
I thank the signatories for drawing this important issue to the Parliament's attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
Hong Kong
Dear Chair
I refer to correspondence from your predecessor, Mr Llew O'Brien regarding a petition (EN1133) requesting the House of Representatives impose sanctions on China over the situation in Hong Kong.
Australia holds deep concerns about the situation in Hong Kong and Beijing's recent imposition of a national security law, which threatens to further weaken confidence in Hong Kong's autonomy and the One Country Two Systems framework.
On 9 July, in response to the new law, Australia took steps to suspend our Extradition Agreement with Hong Kong. The national security law constitutes a fundamental change of circumstances in respect to our Extradition Agreement with Hong Kong. As a result, we no longer consider the treaty's operation tenable in these circumstances.
We have updated our travel advice for Hong Kong to reflect the increased risks facing Australians travelling, living and working in Hong Kong. These arise from vague definitions of new national security crimes, the possibility of transfer or deportation to mainland China, and uncertainty over how the laws will be implemented.
We have also introduced new visa arrangements for all temporary graduates and skilled workers from Hong Kong who want to work and live in Australia.
Hong Kong's autonomy should be safeguarded and the human rights and freedoms of its people upheld, as guaranteed under international law and the Basic Law. Australia supports the right to peaceful protest.
Australia has a substantial stake in Hong Kong's success. The city is home to our largest commercial presence in Asia and one of our biggest expatriate communities globally.
We will continue to work with international partners to closely monitor developments in Hong Kong.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
Assange, Mr Julian
Dear Mr O'Dowd
I refer to correspondence from your predecessor, Mr Llew O'Brien MP, of 11 February 2020 enclosing Petition EN1151 that asks the House of Representatives to take immediate action in order to bring Mr Julian Assange home. I regret the delay in responding.
The Australian Government takes its consular role very seriously. We are monitoring Mr Assange's circumstances very closely, just as we do for other Australian citizens in detention overseas, and affording him the attention we would to any Australian in similar circumstances.
I can confirm that the Australian Government has continued to seek assurances about Mr Assange's health and welfare. I specifically raised Mr Assange's circumstances and the conditions under which he is held, during my meeting with UK Foreign Secretary, the Rt Hon Dominic Raab, earlier this year (6 March 2020). In addition, our officials, including High Commissioner Brandis, have engaged regularly with the UK Government, to ensure Mr Assange's welfare is appropriately safeguarded and that he has sufficient access to both medical and legal advice. All our representations to the UK Government have consistently been met with confirmation that Mr Assange is held in appropriate and humane conditions in Her Majesty's Prison Belmarsh, and that he has regularly benefited from access to the full prison regime of medical and legal support.
Australia has no standing to intervene in Mr Assange's legal matters or extradition proceedings. These are entirely a matter between the United Kingdom (UK) and United States (US) governments. That said, it is the Australian Government's position that Mr Assange is entitled to due process in the legal proceedings he faces. As I have stated on a number of occasions, Australia expects the legal systems of both the UK and the US to deliver on this. I can assure you that we will continue to provide consular support to Mr Assange for as long as he needs it.
I should be grateful if you could convey this response to your Committee's members.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
Human Rights
Dear Chair
Thank you for your email to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations, the Hon Christian Porter MP regarding Petition EN1220 requesting that the House of Representatives enact a Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability law substantially similar to United States' version. In addition, I refer to Petition EN0994 requesting that the House of Representatives support the introduction and passage of legislation establishing a Magnitsky-style human rights sanctions regime. As this matter falls within my portfolio responsibility, the petitions have been passed to me.
I have asked the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to inquire into the use of targeted sanctions to address human rights abuses. This includes considering the establishment in Australia of a global 'Magnitsky-style' human rights sanctions regime to complement those introduced in the United Kingdom and United States.
The Committee has received more than 150 public submissions, and heard from a number of witnesses in public hearings. As a longstanding supporter of protections for individual human rights and freedoms, I have been pleased by the strong interest in the Committee's inquiry.
I expect the Committee to report later this year. The Government will carefully consider the Committee's recommendations once received.
I trust this information is of assistance. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
International Development Assistance
Dear Chair
Thank you for your letter of 9 April 2020 regarding Petition Number EN1258, which seeks the suspension of the Australian Government's international development program to enable funding to be redirected towards domestic priorities.
These are indeed extraordinary times for Australia. The recent drought, bushfires, and now the COVID-19 pandemic, have all impacted heavily on many Australians. I assure the signatories to this petition that keeping Australia and Australians safe continues to be the Government's highest priority.
Our international development program is targeted, effective and necessary. Australia benefits when countries are well governed and able to achieve strong and sustainable economic growth. The growth and stability of our region has provided the foundations for our own security and prosperity over recent decades.
Working with our regional partners to combat the spread of COVID-19 and manage the economic fallout is an important part of protecting Australia and Australians. How our region responds to, and recovers from, the pandemic directly affects Australia's national interests. If transmission rates are not controlled, our own health security could be compromised. If the region does not recover and open up, our own economic recovery could be affected, including the one in five Australian jobs that depend on trade. Partnerships for Recovery: Australia's COVID-19 Development Response Strategy sets out how the development program will contribute to a stable, prosperous and resilient Indo-Pacific in the wake of COVID-19.
Australia's international development program does not take away from the assistance the Government makes available to support those in Australia affected by the recent bushfires or COVID-19. The Australian Government's official development assistance (ODA) represented less than one per cent of the total 2019-20 Budget released by the Government on 2 April 2019. We have the resources to help people here in Australia as well as overseas.
I thank the signatories for drawing this important issue to the Parliament's attention. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
Migration
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 9 April 2020 concerning Petition EN1287 brought to the Standing Committee on Petitions. The Acting Minister for
Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Alan Tudge MP, has asked that I respond on his behalf.
Australia's Migration Program settings are designed to maximise the economic prosperity, national wellbeing and social benefits of immigration through a focus on attracting and selecting highly skilled, young migrants, who deliver higher workforce participation rates, productivity growth and positive flow-on effects for living
standards to all Australians.
Permanent migration delivers a net benefit to the economy, particularly given the program's focus on bringing in young, highly skilled migrants. The Australian Government's continued focus on a highly skilled migrant intake, predominately of working age, helps to reduce the adverse effects of Australia's ageing workforce and falling participation rate, and supports the growth of productivity and Graduate Development Program.
Family migration, including the arrival of skilled migrants and their families, supports a better demographic balance across the general population. Australia also benefits from the success of second generation migrants, who have demonstrated educational and employment outcomes equal or superior to the children of the Australian-born population.
A fundamental principle of Australia's Migration Program is that it is non-discriminatory. This means that anyone from any country can apply to migrate, regardless of their ethnic origin, gender, religion or family composition, provided they meet the criteria set out in law.
Importantly, Australia also complies with all international human rights conventions to which it is a party, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Australia's migration policies will continue to enhance Australia's competitiveness for attracting skilled, well-educated and talented migrants from diverse cultural and language backgrounds, who bring most benefit to Australia.
Thank you for bringing Petition EN1287 to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, MrWood
Lung Cancer
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 17 June 2020 concerning Petition EN1306 - funding for 15 lung cancer nurses in the 2020-21 Budget.
The Australian Government acknowledges the significant impact that lung cancer has on our community and is committed to improving outcomes for people affected by this disease through improved treatment and access to support services.
The Government appreciates the concerns raised about access to lung cancer nurses and recognises the important role nurses play in supporting patients in their cancer treatment. The Government receives requests for a variety of different cancer nurses and unfortunately it is not always possible to meet all of these requests.
Further investment in this area will be guided by demand, clinical best practice and ensuring such investment integrates with the wider nursing workforce, which is predominantly the domain of the states and territories. The National Health Reform Agreements recognise that state and territory governments are best placed to identify and respond to communities' needs for services, including provision of cancer care coordinators/nurses.
The Government has committed to the development of a National Nursing Strategy which will provide opportunities to further consider the role of nurses (including cancer nurses), noting the importance of providing patient-centred care within the multi-disciplinary cancer care team.
Early detection can significantly improve outcomes for people diagnosed with cancer. In August 2019, I tasked Cancer Australia to conduct an enquiry into the prospects, process and delivery of a national lung cancer screening program in Australia, with the findings expected to be delivered in October 2020. The stigma often experienced by lung cancer patients is one of the key issues being considered in this enquiry.
The Government is the single largest investor in cancer research in Australia, and funds significant research into reducing deaths attributed to lung cancer. Since 2013, the Government has invested more than $72 million for lung cancer research, providing funding through the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund and Cancer Australia.
The Government is committed to ensuring Australians have access to safe and effective medicines, and continues to provide new and expanded listings for the treatment of lung cancer under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). In 2019, Government expenditure on lung cancer medicines through the PBS was $328 million.
The Government is also committed to improving the lives of all Australians through better lung health, across all lung conditions. In February 2019, I launched the National Strategic Action Plan for Lung Conditions (Plan), developed by the Lung Foundation Australia and funded by the Government. The Plan addresses the causes, treatment and management of lung disease, including lung cancer, and outlines a series of practical actions.
The Government has committed $4 million to support the implementation of the Plan, with $2 million of this funding provided directly to the Lung Foundation Australia to conduct consumer education and awareness work, and enhance support for Australians at an increased risk of lung disease. The remaining $2 million will be available from 2021-22 through a competitive grant opportunity for the development and delivery of lung conditions education and training for health professionals.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, MrHunt
United Nations
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence regarding petition number EN1333 on Australia's engagement in the United Nations.
Australia's national interests, security and prosperity are served by a stable international order based on pragmatic and principled international cooperation among sovereign states. COVID-19 has demonstrated that the international order, underpinned by the agencies and bodies of the United Nations is vital to address and coordinate a global response to a global challenge.
Australia's international engagement is guided by our national interests, including both our bilateral and multilateral engagement. The recent audit of Australia's engagement with the United Nations affirmed that multilateral institutions create rules that are vital to Australia's security, interests, values and prosperity. These institutions regulate international cooperation in key sectors including civil aviation, maritime transport, intellectual property, telecommunications and agriculture, among others, and promote universal values, such as human rights.
I thank the petitioners for their interest in this matter of national importance. I assure the petitioners of Australia's continued commitment to influence and shape those global institutions aligned with Australia's national interest.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
Personal Information and Privacy
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 9 April 2020 enclosing Petition EN1352 concerning the use of facial recognition technology in Australia. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
The Australian Government is committed to keeping Australians and their personal information safe. The Government's investment in, and use of, facial recognition technology is essential to Australia's security and economic interests. It is vital to the management of Australia's border, to help to protect people from identity crime and is becoming increasingly important for improving Government service delivery, including to victims of natural disasters.
Being able to reliably establish identity is an important element of the Government's commitment to strengthening the identity security of Australians, through the National Identity Security Strategy. The Department of Home Affairs is leading implementation of new biometric face matching services in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on Identity Matching Services, agreed by the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments in October 2017.
The Government has also introduced primary legislation to improve privacy protections and transparency measures as they relate to the sharing of personal information through the services, to ensure the rights of all Australians are protected. The Identity-matching Services Bill 2019 is currently before the Parliament, and will give effect to the Commonwealth's commitments under the Intergovernmental Agreement. The legislation was referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The Government is carefully considering the Committee's report on the Bill to strengthen privacy safeguards over the operation of these services.
Identity crime continues to be one of the most common and costly crimes in Australia According to the latest statistics compiled by the Australian Institute of Criminology, identity crime costs over $2 billion per year, impacts one in 10 Australians each year, and affects one in four Australians over their lifetime. The face matching services established by the Intergovernmental Agreement will reduce the risk of identity theft and fraud in the community, and improve the delivery of key government services, including disaster relief and income support, while maintaining the integrity of these programs.
Privacy and ethics are at the forefront of the Government's use of facial recognition. The Government is committed to demonstrating a high standard of privacy governance, and are steadfast in the ethical use of biometric technology, in accordance with all applicable laws, including the Privacy Act 1988. The Government is equally committed to ensuring that the facial recognition technology being used is as accurate as possible. The Government continues to work with national and international biometric testing bodies to improve the accuracy of its biometric systems. According to recent independent testing, the facial recognition technology used by Commonwealth Government agencies, including the Department, is among the most accurate in the world.
The Government understands the concerns raised around facial recognition technology, and the prospect of real-time monitoring of people in public places (sometimes referred to as 'mass surveillance). Put simply, the technology deployed through the face matching services cannot be used in this way. The system is deliberately designed not to accept live video feeds, such as CCTV.
Additionally, only a specified list of law enforcement, anti-corruption and security agencies may use the Government's services to identify people. It is therefore not possible for private sector organisations, such as operators of stadiums, or local government authorities to use the face matching services provided by the Department to scan a crowd to identify people. As a further safeguard, the Intergovernmental Agreement stresses that the services are not to be used as the sole basis for ascertaining a person's identity for evidentiary purposes.
All of the Government's activities in this important area of public interest are subject to a range of existing oversight bodies. These include the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and the Australian Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity.
Thank you for bringing Petition EN1352 to my attention. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton
COVID-19
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email of 9 April 2020 to Senator the Hon Manse Payne, Minister for Foreign Affairs, concerning Petition EN1354 Return of Chinese students. As the matter raised falls within my portfolio responsibilities as Minister for Education, your email has been referred to me.
The Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP's Roadmap to a COVID-safe Australia makes clear that the Australian Government supports the return of international students to Australia. Careful consideration is being given to how and when that can happen in a COVID-safe way.
Small-scale pilots will be led by states and territories in partnership with education institutions to allow small numbers of international students to return to Australia to continue their studies. The pilot programs will be based on robust health, quarantine, border and provider
protocols. This will ensure a COVID-safe environment for both Australians and international students.
States and territories will make decisions about how and when to move between steps of the COVID-safe Australia framework based on local conditions and in line with public health advice. The Australian Government is working with states and territories on the arrangements.
Thank you for bringing this matter to the Government's attention.
Yours Sincerely
from the Minister for Education, MrTehan
Road Safety
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your letter of 13 May 2020 concerning the House of Representatives petition EN1366. This is about changes to Australian Design Rule (ADR) 31/04 Brake Systems for Passenger Cars for the activation of stop lamps and requirements for additional signage to alert drivers they are approaching corners or intersections.
My Department has advised that while there may be some merit in illuminating stop lamps when a driver is not pressing the brake pedal, such requirements are inconsistent with international standards. The cost of mandating changes to the design of all vehicles is not likely to be justified based on the potential benefits they offer.
Where possible, the ADRs are harmonised with international vehicle regulations adopted by the United Nations. This is important because the overwhelming majority of motor vehicles supplied to the Australian market are imported, while vehicle sales in Australia represent less than one per cent of the total world production of motor vehicles. Regulation based on internationally agreed standards provides consumers with access to the safest vehicles from the global market at the lowest cost.
In relation to road signs on corners, state and territory governments have responsibility for traffic regulation, including road rules and signage. Where possible, states and territories rely on standardised sign types set out in the Australian Road Rules, which is model law developed and maintained by the National Transport Commission (NTC). Standardising the types of signs used ensures road users can rely on them to provide guidance about road conditions or applicable road rules that apply.
As the NTC reviews the mad rules every two years, you may wish refer this matter to the state and territory governments to consider as part of NTC's next review of the rules.
Thank you again for your correspondence and I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Deputy Prime Minister, MrMcCormack
Goods and Services Tax
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 May 2020 concerning petition EN1376 to extend Goods and Service Tax (GST) free status to accredited exercise physiology services. 1 apologise for the delay in responding to you.
Since its introduction, the GST has applied to a broad suite of goods and services at a single rate of 10 per cent. There are a very limited number of exemptions in areas such as basic food, education, certain medical goods and services and aspects of exercise physiology services. For example, supplies of exercise physiology services may be GST-free where a Medicare benefit is provided.
In general, the GST is most efficient and imposes the least regulatory burden and competitive distortions on business when it applies to a broad range of goods and services. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations and Commonwealth legislation, a change to the base of the GST, including new exemptions, would need the unanimous support of the state and territory governments. It would also require the passage of relevant legislation by both Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament.
The petitioners' views about the GST status of exercise physiology services have been noted, and will help inform future consideration of this issue by the Commonwealth and the states and territories.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer, MrSukkar
COVID-19: Biosecurity
Dear Mr O'Dowd
I refer to your letter of 13 May 2020 concerning Petition number EN1389. The petition calls on the Australian Government to encourage all Australians to wear masks in public areas to counter the spread of COVID-19.
The Australian Government has taken a strong and decisive approach in responding to COVID-19, based on the latest and best medical advice from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and the Communicable Diseases Network Australia. Flexible, appropriate and scalable health emergency response arrangements included physical distancing measures and border, isolation, surveillance and case tracing mechanisms. These actions have placed us in a good position globally.
The Government's advice, which aligns with guidance from the World Health Organization, is that there is currently no evidence that wearing a mask by healthy persons in the wider community setting can prevent them from infection with respiratory viruses, including COVID-19. The use of medical masks in the community may create a false sense of security, with neglect of other essential measures, such as hand hygiene practices and physical distancing. People who have COVID-19 will be in isolation until recovered and if they need to visit the doctor they must wear a face mask to prevent the spread of infectious droplets. Medical masks should be reserved for health care workers and others that have a high risk of contact with individuals with suspected COVID-19.
The Government is fully committed to keeping Australians as safe and well as possible during this pandemic. Australian governments are now taking a measured approach, gradually removing restrictions to allow work and social activities to resume in a COVID-19 safe environment.
Continued suppression of COVID-19 is about collective action and success depends on Australians making the following behaviours part of our daily lives:
maintaining physical distancing of 1.5 metres whenever and wherever we can
maintaining good hand washing and cough/sneeze hygiene
staying home when we are unwell, and getting tested if we have respiratory symptoms or a fever
having businesses develop COVID-safe plans for workplaces and plans. Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, MrHunt
COVID-19: Workplace Relations
Dear Chair
Thank you for your email of 13 May 2020, forwarding Petition EN1400 about working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was referred to me as the Minister for Industrial Relations.
Health and safety in the workplace has been a key Government priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. On 24 April 2020, the National Cabinet agreed to a set of National COVID-19 safe workplace principles, including specific commitments to mitigate the pandemic's effects and respond appropriately to workplace cases. This included a commitment for Safe Work Australia to act as a central hub of work health and safety (WHS) guidance and tools on COVID-19.
Nonetheless, the responsibility for regulating and enforcing WHS laws remains with the jurisdictions. This is reflected in the several physical distancing and other health measures - enforceable under state and territory public health or emergency management legislation - that have been introduced since March 2020, and which have been designed to minimise the transmission risks of COVID-19.
I note that if work can be completed at home, and the risks that arise from working remotely can be effectively managed, an employer may reasonably encourage or direct workers to work from home as the best way to minimise the risk of exposure to COVID-19. Further guidance and advice on how to implement physical distancing in offices is available on the Safe Work Australia website at https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/covid-19-information-workplaces/industry-inforrnation/office.
Moreover, workers who are not directed to work from home by an employer or an enforceable government direction may request flexible working arrangements. Further information on this can be found on the Fair Work Ombudsman website at https://coronavirus.fairwork.gov.au/coronavirus-and-australian-workplace-laws.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, MrPorter
COVID-19: Child Care
Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email of 13 May 2020 to Senator the Hon Anne Ruston, Minister for Families and Social Services, regarding petition number EN1413 - request to waive out-of-pocket fees charged by providers of early childhood education and care services in the environment of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the matter raised falls within my portfolio responsibilities as Minister for Education, your email has been referred to me. I apologise for the delayed response, which is the result of COVID-19 policy changes and resourcing challenges in the department during this busy time.
The Child Care Subsidy (CCS) and Additional Child Care Subsidy recommenced from
13 July 2020, along with a relaxed activity test for families and a new Transition Payment for providers.
A key principle and requirement under Family Assistance Law is that all parents who receive CCS should make a co-contribution to their child care fees. The co-contribution (or gap fee) is the total of the fees the parent is liable to pay for sessions of care minus the amount of CCS paid in respect of those fees and sessions.
Until 31 December 2020, while a service is closed as a result of a public health directive, they are permitted to waive parent gap fees.
From 13 July 2020 until 31 December 2020, services open and located in an area of Stage 3 or higher 'Stay at Home' restrictions are able to waive parent gap fees where a child is not attending due to COVID-19, and an absence is recorded.
Centre Based Day Care and Outside School Hours Care services are able to waive the gap fee in these circumstances. However, given the different care settings and fees, if In Home Care and Family Day Care providers believe their service or families need this assistance they should apply to the Department of Education, Skills and Employment by emailing childcareintegrity@dese.gov.au to first undergo a compliance check.
Areas subject to Stage 3 or higher 'Stay at Home restrictions are listed at www.vic.gov.au/coronavirus-covid-19-restrictions-victoria.
Once again, I apologise for the delay in replying to you. I trust this information is of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, MrTehan
COVID-19: United States of America
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 13 May 2020 concerning petition EN1415 to deny entries from the United States, and enforce mandatory temperature checks at Australian airports. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this petition to my attention.
On 12 March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 as a pandemic.
Acting on the latest health advice from the Chief Medical Officer and health authorities, the National Cabinet on 20 March 2020, moved to close Australia's borders to non-citizens, permanent residents and their families.
From 28 March 2020, the Australian Government introduced a mandatory 14-day quarantine period in a designated facility for anybody returning from overseas. These measures are temporary and are reviewed regularly.
All border control measures are undertaken in conjunction with the Department of Health and Biosecurity to minimize risks to Australia's National health.
The lead agency responsible for temperature checking at the Australian border is the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. The Australian Border Force is supporting the appropriate screening of arriving travellers in conjunction with biosecurity and health officials. Travellers who demonstrate any signs or symptoms of illness are referred to biosecurity officers for further assessment.
Temperature monitoring at domestic borders would be a matter for consideration by state and territory governments. Airport corporations are also considering thermal technology to assist with security screening of passengers.
The Government will continue to work hand in hand with its medical authorities and act on the best possible advice to keep Australians safe.
Thank you for bringing petition EN1415 to my attention. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton
Medicare
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 15 June 2020 concerning petition number EN1418 in relation to access to Medicare by foreign trained doctors.
The Australian Government recognises the unique challenges facing the health system in rural and remote regions, and Is focused on improving the capacity, quality, distribution and services to meet the needs of families and communities in these areas. Section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and its Guidelines, seeks to support doctors to work in Distribution Priority Areas (DPA) and District of Workforce Shortage (DWS) locations to better support provision of services to areas in most need.
Section 19AB restricts international medical graduates from accessing the Medicare benefit arrangements from the date of their first Australian medical registration for a period of ten years. Under the Guidelines, exemptions may be considered when a doctor seeks to practise in an area in which the general population's need for medical services is not met. This is referred to as a DPA for GPs or a DWS for specialists. Australian doctors who graduate from an international medical school are also subject to these restrictions.
Section 19AB does not prevent a doctor from practising in Australia, nor does it force a doctor to practice at a particular location. Overseas Trained Doctors (OTD) and Foreign Graduates of an Accredited Medical School (FGAMS) are free to provide professional medical services that are not subsidised by the Medicare scheme (in a private capacity), anywhere their visa allows. Section 19AB simply sets out the eligibility requirements where a doctor wishes to access a Government-paid Medicare benefit
The operation of section 19AB is consistent with the Government's skilled migration policies. The aim of skilled migration is to attract migrants who make a significant contribution to the Australian community, to fill positions where there may be a shortfall of Australian workers available. For doctors, these locations are those given DPA or DWS status. The section 19AB restrictions seek to make healthcare access fair for all Australians, including those where doctors are in much shorter supply than other areas.
Government legislation and instruments are required to document a Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights. The Health Insurance (Section 19AB Exemptions Guidelines) Determination 2019 was assessed as being compatible with human rights because the provisions contained within the Guidelines advance the protection of human rights by enabling limited resources (Medicare benefits) to be spent more effectively and for the benefit of all Australians.
To the extent that the Health Insurance (Section 19AB Exemptions Guidelines) Determination 2019 may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate. Specifically addressed are:
Right to health services: the Guidelines promote the right to health for all Australians by including a number of provisions that have a direct effect on medical workforce distribution, specifically the private medical workforce.
Freedom of movement:
The right to freedom of movement includes the right to move freely within a country for persons who are lawfully within a country. The Government is not directly responsible for determining where any doctor (Australian or overseas trained) may practise medicine. Eligibility to practise medicine in Australia is determined through the medical registration process.
Nothing in the Guidelines forces OTDs and FGAMS to provide medical services in any particular area in Australia, or requires an OTD or FGAMS to service a particular group of patients or to provide a particular set of medical services within their medical specialty. The Guidelines also do not place any restriction on the ability of OTDs or FGAMS to either enter or leave Australia.
Equality and non-discrimination: the Guidelines and the related section 19AB restrictions limit the capacity of OTDs and FGAMS to provide services for which Medicare rebates are payable. However, OTDs and FGAMS are not identified on the basis of their race, their descent, or their national or ethnic origin. The ten year moratorium requirement is applied uniformly to all medical practitioners who belong to the OTDs and FGAMS cohorts. Australian citizens, permanent residents and temporary residents who fall into these cohorts are all subject to the same restrictions under the ten year moratorium requirement and receive the same treatment by each of the provisions of the Guidelines.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, MrHunt
COVID-19: Economy
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 June 2020, originally directed to the Treasurer, concerning Petition EN1419, regarding assistance for rental and utility bills. Your correspondence has been referred to me for response.
On 7 April 2020, the National Cabinet agreed that state and territory jurisdictions would implement a mandatory Code of Conduct (the Code) for small-medium sized entities (SME) commercial leasing principles during COV1D-19. The Code is ultimately regulated and enforced by state and territory jurisdictions. The Code of Conduct automatically extended with the extension of JobKeeper to 28 March 2021.
The Code applies to SME and focuses on commercial tenancies (retail, office building and industrial leases) where (i) the tenant is eligible for the JobKeeper program; and (ii) the tenant has an annual turnover of $50 million or less.
The Code will help ensure SME businesses that rent their place of business are able to emerge from this challenging period and bounce back on the other side by allowing an appropriate burden share over the period and providing tenants and landlords with a framework with which to negotiate during this period. Importantly, the mandatory Code allows parties to reach tailored, bespoke and appropriate temporary arrangements for each tenant, and sets out a binding mediation process that parties should follow if they are not able to reach an appropriate agreement.
The Australian Government has acted decisively to help households and businesses and address the significant economic consequences of the Coronavirus.
A total of $289 billion is being injected into the economy in order to keep Australians in work and businesses in business. The Government's economic support package includes a number of measures to support Australian businesses to retain employees and manage cash flow challenges during the Coronavirus.
On 30 March 2020, the Government introduced a wage subsidy program, which was originally due to run until 27 September 2020, to support employees and businesses. Under the JobKeeper Payment, up until 27 September, eligible businesses and not-for-profits receive $1,500 per fortnight before tax per eligible employee to cover the cost of wages. This means more employees can retain their job and continue to earn an income.
On 21 July 2020. the Government announced that the JobKeeper Payment will be extended by 6 months, until 28 March 2021. Businesses wishing to claim JobKeeper during the extension period will be required to reassess their turnover and the Payment will also change to a two tiered payment.
The Government is providing tax-free cash flow boosts of between $20,000 and $100,000 to eligible small and medium businesses and not-for-profit organisations (NFPs) so they can keep operating, pay their rent, electricity and other bills, and retain staff.
Eligible employers receive these boosts as credits upon lodging their activity statements for the March to September 2020 periods. Where this places an employer in a refund position. the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will generally deliver the refund within 14 days.
Eligible employers who withhold tax to the ATO on their employees' salary and wages will receive an initial cash flow boost equal to 100 per cent of the amount withheld, up to a maximum payment of $50,000. Eligible employers receive a minimum initial cash flow boost of $10,000, even if they are not required to withhold tax.
The initial cash flow boost is credited upon lodgement of activity statements for the March to June 2020 periods. Initial cash flow boosts have been credited since 19 April 2020,
The economic impacts of the Coronavirus and health measures to prevent its spread will see many otherwise profitable and viable businesses temporarily face financial distress. It is important that these businesses have a safety net to make sure that when the crisis has passed they can resume normal operations.
To make sure that businesses have confidence to continue to trade through the Coronavirus health crisis with the aim of returning to viability when the crisis has passed, directors will be temporarily relieved of their duty to prevent insolvent trading with respect to any debts incurred in the ordinary course of the company's business. This will relieve the director of personal liability that would otherwise be associated with the insolvent trading. It will apply for six months.
The Government has also temporarily increased the current minimum threshold for creditors issuing a statutory demand on a company under the Corporations Act 2001from $2,000 to $20,000 and temporarily extended the timeframe for a company to respond to a statutory demand from 21 days to six months.
The Government also has a temporary power to provide targeted relief to businesses from provisions of the Corporations Act 2001, where it is appropriate to do solo facilitate the continuation of business or mitigate the economic impact of the Coronavirus health crisis.
The Government understands that the economic and financial impacts of Coronavirus will extend well beyond those receiving direct assistance under its Economic Response to Coronavirus package. This event will affect all Australians, to varying degrees.
The announced measures are expected to benefit all Australians, now and over the long-term, by supporting overall confidence, employment and business continuity. The more supportive we all are in ensuring as many businesses are in a position to continue activity after the passing of the Coronavirus pandemic, the more successful the recovery will be on the other side.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer, MrSukkar
COVID-19: Schools
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your emails of 15 June 2020 to the Hon Greg Hunt MP, Minister for Health, regarding COVID-19 and Petitions EN1422 and EN1430. As the matter raised falls with my portfolio responsibilities as Minister for Education, your email has been referred to me.
The Australian Government is actively monitoring the outbreak of COVID-19. We will continue to follow the medical advice of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC), which is developed by chief medical officers from the Commonwealth and each state and territory. The aim of all governments is to safeguard the health of Australians.
The National Cabinet has agreed to a set of seven National Principles for School Education (National Principles) to support the ongoing delivery of high quality education for all school students during COVID-19. These principles are available at www.dese.gov.au/covid19/schools/national-princioles-for-school-education.
The National Principles note the consistent health advice of the AHPPC is that attendance at a school campus for education represents a very low health risk to students. The advice also notes that appropriate practices must be employed at schools, like at other workplaces, to provide a safe working environment for school staff, including teachers, and that the specific AHPPC advice regarding school campuses should be followed.
The AHPPC has issued practical guidance and advice to support school leaders to reduce even further the risk of COVID-19 transmission in schools. The guidelines and the latest health information relating to COVID-19 are available at www.health.gov.au/committeesand-groups/australian-health-protection-principal-committee-ahppc.
It is vital that all students continue to engage with a high quality education and progress through their year level throughout this COVID-19 period,
State and Territory Governments and non-government sector authorities are responsible for managing and making operational decisions for their school systems respectively, subject to compliance with relevant funding agreements with the Commonwealth. Decisions regarding the response to COVID-19 in the schooling sector must continue to be informed by expert, official, national and state-based public health and education advice, consistent with the National Principles.
I trust this information assists the deliberations of the Committee.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, MrTehan
COVID-19: Schools
COVID-19: Higher Education
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your emails of 15 June 2020 regarding Petitions EN1437 and EN1478 on international student financial relief due to the impact of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19). welcome the opportunity to respond to the petitions.
The Australian Government is committed to the health, safety and wellbeing of international students currently in Australia. We recognise this is a challenging time for international students and their families, who make significant sacrifices to embark upon a world class education in Australia.
The Government is encouraging education providers to consider flexible arrangements for students during this time, including delivering courses fully online, where appropriate, for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Education, Skills and Employment, the Australian Skills Quality Authority and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency have all provided advice on this matter, which can be found on the following websites at docs.education.gov.au/node/53248, www.asqa.gov/covid-19 and www.teqsa.gov.au/latestnews/articles/coronavirus-covid-19-latest-regulatory-advice.
My department recommends students and education providers come to an agreement on an alternative online delivery if a student is unable to start classes in-person due to travel restrictions. Allowing flexibility of online delivery does not remove students' protections, or remove providers' obligations to their students under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000.
The department recognises that for many students, online delivery is a welcome option that allows them to continue their studies uninterrupted. However, online delivery may not be suitable for all courses or students and may be a significant departure from an international student's expectations of their course.
Where students express concern, providers should work with them to ensure they are satisfied the course is comparable to what they expected to receive and seek their agreement to the new arrangement. Providers should be transparent on the mode of delivery, resources available to students, methods of assessment and how any practical components will be managed.
If a student remains dissatisfied with the delivery of their course, providers should consider each case on its merits and take care to ensure that the student understands the options available to them.
Where a student is not satisfied with the provider's online offering, options to address this may include:
making adjustments or concessions with the student's agreement
deferring or suspending the student's enrolment
releasing the student and providing a refund.
It is open to providers to offer reduced tuition fees to students in recognition of changes to their educational offering and this may be one of the changes negotiated between the parties. There is no mechanism that would enable the Government to intervene in these arrangements to set prices.
If a student and provider are unable to come to an agreement, the student can make a formal complaint through the provider's internal complaints process. If the student is not satisfied with the outcome of the internal complaints process, they are able to make a complaint to an external body. For private providers, the most appropriate external complaints body is the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman www.ombudsman.gov.au/How-we-can-help/overseas-students. For students at public providers, including Australia's public universities, the appropriate complaints body will be the Ombudsman for the state or territory in which their course is delivered.
Where students remain in Australia, it is important that they retain lawful visa status. A flexible approach is being taken to student visa conditions where COVID-19 and travel restrictions have prevented visa conditions being met, such as attendance at class or use of online learning. If a student's visa is expiring, they are currently unable to return home and they can't meet the requirements for another visa, they may be eligible for the Temporary Activity (Subclass 408) Australian Government Endorsed Event stream (COVID-19 Pandemic event visa).
There are a range of support measures available to international students both from the Commonwealth and states and territories. I would encourage the initiators of the petitions to visit www.dese.gov.au/news/coronavirus-covid-19 for further information on what support may be available to them.
I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, MrTehan
Pensions and Benefits
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email dated 15 June 2020 to the Treasurer, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, regarding Petition EN1442, which concerns the Coronavirus Supplement. As the matter
raised falls within my portfolio responsibility, your email has been forwarded to me for reply.
The Coronavirus Supplement is one of a number of temporary measures that have been designed to cushion the impact of economic downturn resulting from the coronavirus pandemic. The payment is intended for workers who have been stood down or had their working hours reduced as well as those people who are looking for work because they have previously lost theirs. This applies to recipients of working age payments such as JobSeeker Payment, Youth Allowance and Parenting Payment. The supplement is in recognition of the depressed job market as a result of the coronavirus making it more difficult for people who are unemployed or who become unemployed in the current economic environment where finding new work is a difficult challenge.
Pension payments such as Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment are long-term payments and are typically paid at the highest rate of support in the social security system - significantly higher than the regular JobSeeker Payment. This is because recipients are not typically expected to work to support themselves due to age, disability or caring responsibilities. In addition, they also have access to the Pensioner Concession Card, which provides access to more concessions than the Health Care Card that people on JobSeeker Payment have.
The Coronavirus Supplement is temporary while pension payment rates will continue to apply beyond the coronavirus pandemic. Pension payment recipients will have received
two Economic Support Payments (ESP) of $750 paid from 31 March 2020 and 13 July 2020. The second ESP was not paid to those receiving the Coronavirus Supplement.
Pension payment recipients who are still working may be able to receive assistance under the $1,500 per fortnight JobKeeper Payment introduced by the Government to help businesses impacted by the coronavirus to continue paying their employees. Further information is available at www.ato.gov.au.
In addition, some pensioners will benefit from the Government's announcements to reduce deeming rates on both the upper and lower social security deeming rates.
The Government is closely monitoring the health, economic and social impacts of COVID-19 and will continue to take a measured approach as the situation evolves.
Thank you again for raising this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Families and Social Services, SenatorRuston
COVID-19: Child Care
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email of 15 June 2020 to Senator the Hon Anne Ruston, Minister for Families and Social Services, Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator for South Australia, regarding Petition Number EN1445, concerning the Child Care Subsidy (CCS). As the matters raised fall within my portfolio responsibilities as Minister for Education, the petition has been referred to me.
The CCS and Additional Child Care Subsidy (ACCS) recommenced on 13 July 2020, along with a range of new measures to support families and child care businesses through the transition, including a relaxed activity test for families and a new Transition Payment for providers.
Approved providers will receive a Transition Payment for the period 13 July 2020 to 27 September 2020. Transition Payments are up to 25 per cent of providers' fee revenue or the existing hourly rate cap, whichever is lower, in the relevant reference period. This is the same reference period used during the Early Childhood Education and Care Relief Package (Relief Package), and for most services will be for the fortnight ending 2 March 2020.
To receive Transition Payments, providers must:
offer an employment guarantee by continuing to employ those employees over the transition period who were working or being paid the JobKeeper Payment at the end of the Relief Package
ensure they are not claiming the JobKeeper Payment for ineligible employees, or for themselves as JobKeeper eligible business participants or for any person associated with their delivery of child care
cap fees to the level in the relevant Relief Payment reference period.
The JobKeeper Payment ceased from 20 July 2020 for employees of a CCS approved provider and for JobKeeper eligible business participants (including sole traders) operating a child care service. The Transition Payment complements other initiatives to help services and families transition back to CCS and ACCS. Families who have had their hours of activity reduced as a result of COVID-19 will be able to access up to 100 hours per fortnight of care to 4 October 2020. Families experiencing temporary financial hardship, including as a result of job loss clue to COVID-19, may be eligible to receive up to 100 hours per fortnight of subsidised care (up to 120 per cent of the hourly rate cap) for a period of up to 13 weeks.
The Australian Government is also providing further support for families and services, when services are directed to close on health advice or are located in an area of Stage 3 or higher restrictions. These services are able to waive families' out of pocket fees where a child is not attending due to COVID-19. This provides financial relief for families and encourages them to keep their enrolments. It also supports the service to keep the enrolment and continue to receive the CCS payment. The gap fee is the difference between the CCS the Government pays to a service and the remaining fee owed by the family. This means that if a child is absent from care for COVID-19 related reasons, the child care service can waive their gap fee which means more money in the family's pocket.
The Government wants to ensure that child care services remain open for workers and vulnerable families who need those services_
On 5 August 2020, the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, and I announced a further package of support measures for Victorian early childhood education and care services. These include increasing the number of allowable absences by 30 days for Victorian families experiencing Stage Four restrictions so they can keep their children enrolled in care and services can continue to receive CCS. To further assist services to keep workers employed, the Government will provide an extra $16.3 million to fund a higher Transition Payment of 30 per cent of pre-COVID-19 revenue for all early childhood education and care (ECEC) services in metropolitan Melbourne.
The Government will also provide a further $16 million to fund an additional top-up payment for eligible services that receive low CCS payments, recognising that these services benefit less than other services from use of absence provisions.
The Department of education, Skills and Employment continues to follow advice of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC) that ECEC continues to be a safe environment for children and staff.
Where a staff member is diagnosed as positive for COVID-19, or has been in close contact with a person who has tested positive, they should immediately inform their state or territory health authority and seek advice from their child care state regulatory authority (SRA). Flexibility exists under the current legislation, the Education and Care Services National Law Act 2010, for SRAs to grant staffing waivers for services unable to meet legislated staff-to-child ratios.
Decisions regarding the closure of services and the approval of waivers for staff-to-child ratios are a matter for SRAs. All states and territories are currently considering these issues carefully and working closely with services to encourage continuity for families while ensuring safety of the community. Any service experiencing an impact to their workforce due to the current COVID-19 situation should contact their relevant SRA and discuss options available for staffing waivers.
The AHPPC has also considered the issue of COVID-19 in children and management of early childhood and learning centres in relation to the community transmission of COVID-19. Emerging epidemiologic reports on COVID-19 show, that while children are less likely than adults to be infected and have severe illness, they are still vulnerable to COVID-19. The AHPPC's advice is that pre-emptive closures are not proportionate or effective as a public health intervention to prevent community transmission of COVID-19 at this time. Further detail is available online at www.health.gov.au/news/australian-health-protection-principal-committee-ahivc-coronavirus-covid-19-statement-on-3-april-2020.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, MrTehan
Port Arthur Massacre
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email of 15 June 2020 regarding a petition (EN1446) calling for a Royal Commission into the Port Arthur massacre. I acknowledge the tragic events and loss of life that occurred and appreciate you referring this matter to me.
Royal Commissions are a form of non-judicial and non-administrative governmental investigation and are only established in exceptional circumstances. Commonwealth Royal Commissions are established through the issuing of Letters Patent by the Governor-General under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth).
I do not consider it appropriate for a Commonwealth Royal Commission to be established to investigate these allegations. The matters raised appear to concern the responsibilities of the Tasmanian Government.
Thank you for raisin ¶matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, MrPorter
Medicare
Dear Chair
I refer to your correspondence of 15 June 2020 on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions concerning petition EN1447 requesting the Australian Government expand Medicare rebates for telehealth consultations.
I can assure you the Government is committed to ensuring all Australians have access to high quality and affordable health care. The high cost of services reported through the referred petition is of concern, particularly in relation to the elderly and other vulnerable groups for whom the Medicare response to COVID-19 has been targeted.
While health practitioners may choose to offer private services that are Ineligible for Medicare rebates, since 30 March 2020 telehealth services introduced to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) have been available to all Medicare eligible patients. While it is unclear from the information provided, the specific matter raised may relate to the initial stages of the Government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
As you are aware, the COVID-19 MBS telehealth measure commenced on 13 March 2020, to help reduce the risk of community transmission of COVID-19 and provide protection for patients and health care providers, The Government has been responsive to stakeholder feedback, with timely expansions to patient eligibility and available telehealth services.
There have now been 283 MBS items introduced in response to the COVID-19, including telehealth services from GPs, other medical practitioners, specialists and consultant physicians (including psychiatrists), nurse practitioners, participating midwives, and allied health professionals including mental health service providers. Detailed information and factsheets on all telehealth services made available as part of the COVID-19 response is available online at: www.mbsonline.gov.au.
I note the request to expand telehealth to all GP consultations. The new telehealth items are designed to mirror existing MBS attendance items where appropriate, subject to the maintenance of normal clinical and safety standards. For example, services that require physical observations and measurements have not been replicated for telehealth. This approach has been co-designed and supported by organisations responsible for the clinical governance of GP services.
The new MBS telehealth items have been established temporarily and will be available until 30 September 2020. The Government is monitoring the implementation and impact of these services, with any changes subject to the consideration of advice from the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee and other stakeholders.
Thank you for writing on this matter. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, MrHunt
COVID-19
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 June 2020 concerning petition EN1450 regarding arrangements for temporary visa holders in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Alan Tudge MP, has asked that I respond on his behalf.
I note that petition EN1450 outlines some of the contributions made to Australia by temporary visa holders, and raises concerns that many may become unlawful non-citizens when their current visas expire during the COVID-19 pandemic period of border and travel restrictions. Petition EN1450 requests that all temporary working visas and working holiday visas that will expire, be extended until such time as these restrictions are lifted.
Following the significant limitations on international travel introduced across the global community in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, on 4 April 2020, the Australian Government announced new arrangements that will ensure that all temporary visa holders can continue to remain lawfully in Australia, should their visas expire during this period of travel restrictions.
Normal visa arrangements will continue to apply for temporary visa holders in Australia who are eligible to extend their stay to continue with their ongoing work or study activities. This includes holders of temporary work visas and student visas, as well as working holiday makers who have engaged in specified work activities in regional Australia, such that they are eligible to apply for a further 12 month stay.
The Government also announced a new arrangement for temporary visa holders who are working in agriculture, food processing, health care, aged and disability care and childcare sectors, where availability of essential workers may be critically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. These workers are able to continue in their critical employment for up to 12 months under the Temporary Activity (subclass 408) visa in the Australian Government Endorsed Event stream (COVID-19 pandemic event visa).
Temporary visa holders who have ceased their activities in Australia, but who are unable to return home before their visas expire due to travel restrictions, are advised to apply for a visitor visa to remain lawfully in Australia, while waiting to make departure arrangements. Those who are unable to make an application for a visitor visa, or for a visa of another type, can make an application for the COVID-19 pandemic event visa to maintain lawful status, while waiting to make departure arrangements.
Further details on arrangements for temporary visa holders staying in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic, can be found on the Department of Home Affairs' website at: https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au.
Thank you for bringing petition EN1450 to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, MrWood
Video Game Industry
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your letter dated 15 June 2020 regarding petition EN1452 from Mr Callum Hussein raising concerns about chance-based micro-transactions in computer games, commonly known as loot boxes'. I acknowledge Mr Hussein's concerns about the impact of loot boxes in games and his interest in the Morrison Government taking steps to prevent harm to children and vulnerable people.
Games classification
It is important that the content of computer games is classified appropriately. This helps Australians to make informed choices about what games they or their children watch and play.
The National Classification Scheme requires that computer games are classified before they are sold or published in Australia. Computer games are classified by the Classification Board (the Board) or the International Age Rating Coalition (IARC) tool (for online and mobile games in participating storefronts including the Google Play, Microsoft and Nintendo stores). Content in computer games is classified according to standards in the National Classification Code and the Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games (the Guidelines). Computer games are assigned a classification rating (e.g. G, PG) and include consumer advice (e.g. violence, sexual references). Consumer advice can relate to the six classifiable elements (themes, violence, sex, language, drug use and nudity) and can also include information about content in a game such as online interactivity and/or in-game purchases. More information, including the Board's decisions, can be found on the Australian classification website, www.classification.gov.au.
In December 2019, the Government appointed Neville Stevens AO as the independent expert to lead a review of Australian classification regulation. The review included consideration of the classification of games with loot boxes.
Mr Stevens provided his report to the Government at the end of May 2020 and the Government is considering the report. Public submissions to the review can be viewed at www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/review-australian-classificationregulation.
Parents and carers
It is important that parents and carers are aware of parental controls that are available on most devices including computers, tablets, smartphones and gaming consoles. These tools help parents monitor and limit what children do online including allowing parents to control financial purchases made by their children. Additionally, these controls allow parents to set limits on the length of time that children spend on particular sites including games and social media. Tool settings can be changed to reflect a child's age and skills.
The Office of the eSafety Commissioner offers information and advice to parents regarding online gaming and gambling risks for children. Further information, including information on parental controls, can be found at www.esafety.gov.au.
Interactive Gambling Act 2001
The Interactive Gambling Act 2001 (the IGA) makes it an offence to provide or advertise prohibited and unlicensed regulated interactive gambling services to customers in Australia. Prohibited services include online casino-style gaming services of chance or mixed skill and chance, such as online poker and slot machines, which are played for money or anything else of value.
The 1GA does not capture computer games as they are considered a game of skill, though there may be some chance element in the game. In general, loot boxes and similar items are not considered interactive gambling services under the 1GA. The 1GA, however, does capture third party websites that allow players to gamble on virtual items on casino-style games where the virtual items can be exchanged for money or anything else of value. Such operators would be subject to the increased enforcement measures that were introduced as part of the Interactive Gambling Amendment Act 2017 that came into effect on 13 September 2017. Industry self-regulation
Many online app and game storefronts (e.g. Apple App store, Google Play store) advise at the point of sale if a game includes in-game purchases.
The Government has continued to monitor industry developments around loot boxes. In May 2019, the Google Play store announced changes to their policies where games apps are now required to disclose the odds of receiving items in loot boxes. The Apple App store has required apps to disclose the odds of receiving different types of items since December 2017. Both of these storefronts advise at the point of sale if a game includes in-game purchases.
In August 2019, the major game console makers, Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, committed to policies that will require paid loot boxes in games developed for their platforms to disclose information on the relative probability of obtaining randomised virtual items.
Thank you again for bringing Mr Hussein's petition to my attention. I hope the information in this letter is of some help.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, MrFletcher
COVID-19
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 June 2020, originally directed to the Treasurer, concerning Petition EN1458 - Commercial tenancies. Your correspondence has been referred to me for response.
The Australian Government has acted decisively to help households and businesses and address the significant economic consequences of the Coronavirus.
The Government is providing timely economic support with $289 billion in fiscal and balance sheet measures, equivalent to around 14.6 per cent of gross domestic product. The Government's economic support package includes a number of measures to support Australian businesses to retain employees and manage cash flow challenges during the Coronavirus.
To support the economic recovery, the Government is extending and further targeting temporary economic measures to support sectors, regions and communities that continue to face challenges.
On 30 March 2020, the Government introduced a wage subsidy program, which was originally due to run until 27 September 2020, to support employees and businesses. Under the JobKeeper Payment, up until 27 September, eligible businesses and not-for-profits will receive $1,500 per fortnight per eligible employee to cover the costs of wages. This will mean more employees can retain their job and continue to earn an income.
On 21 July 2020, the Government announced that the JobKeeper Payment will be extended by 6 months, until 28 March 2021. Support will be targeted to businesses and not-for-profits that continue to be significantly impacted by the Coronavirus. The payment rate will be reduced and a lower payment rate will be introduced for those who work fewer hours.
The Government is providing tax-free cash flow boosts of between $20,0130 and $100,000 to eligible small and medium businesses, including sole traders that employ people (other than themselves). These payments will help the cash flow of sole traders that employ people, so they can keep operating, pay their rent, electricity and other bills, and retain staff.
Eligible sole traders will receive these boosts as credits upon lodging their activity statements for the March to September 2020 periods. Where this places an employer in a refund position, the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will generally deliver the refund within 14 days.
Eligible sole traders who withhold tax to the ATO on their employees' salary and wages will receive an initial cash flow boost equal to 100 per cent of the amount withheld, up to a maximum payment of $50,000. Eligible employers receive a minimum initial cash flow boost of $10,000, even if they are not required to withhold tax.
The initial cash flow boost is credited upon lodgement of activity statements for the March to June 2020 periods. Initial cash flow boosts have been credited since 19 April 2020.
Sole traders that receive initial cash flow boosts will also receive additional cash flow boosts upon lodging their activity statements for the June to September 2020 periods. These additional cash flow boosts will be equal to the total amount of initial cash flow boosts received. This means that eligible businesses that employ people will receive at least $20,000 up to $100,000 in total cash flow boosts.
The economic impacts of the Coronavirus and health measures to prevent its spread will see many otherwise profitable and viable businesses temporarily face financial distress. It is important that these businesses have a safety net to make sure that when the crisis has passed they can resume normal operations
To make sure that businesses have confidence to continue to trade through the Coronavirus health crisis with the aim of returning to viability when the crisis has passed, directors will be temporarily relieved of their duty to prevent insolvent trading with respect to any debts incurred in the ordinary course of the company's business. This will relieve the director of personal liability that would otherwise be associated with the insolvent trading. It will apply for six months.
The Government has also temporarily increased the current minimum threshold for creditors issuing a statutory demand on a company under the Corporations Act 2001 from $2,000 to $20,000 and temporarily extended the timeframe for a company to respond to a statutory demand from 21 days to six months.
The Government is supporting Australia's economic recovery by ensuring we maintain our pipeline of skilled workers and keep apprentices and trainees in work. We have extended our Supporting Apprentices and Trainees wage subsidy for a further 6 months to 31 March 2021 and made it available to medium-sized businesses from 1 July 2020.
The Government's support will help small and medium-sized businesses and Group Training Organisations to retain their apprentices and trainees by offering eligible employers a wage subsidy of 50 per cent of an apprentice's or trainee's wage, up to a cap of $7,000 per quarter, paid until 31 March 2021.
The wage subsidy is available to small and medium-sized businesses with fewer than 200 employees, including those using a Group Training Organisation, who retain an Australian Apprentice engaged as at 1 July 2020 (and are not claiming other wage subsidies, including JobKeeper). Employers of any size, including Group Training Organisations that re-engage an eligible out-of-trade apprentice or trainees will also be eligible for the subsidy.
The Coronavirus Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) Guarantee Scheme will enhance access to working capital for SMEs to help them through the impact of Coronavirus. Under the Scheme, the Government will provide a guarantee of 50 per cent to SME lenders to support up to $40 billion worth of new loans. This will enhance lenders' willingness and ability to provide credit, which will result in SMEs being able to access additional funding to help support them through the upcoming months.
The initial phase of the Scheme is available for new loans made by participating lenders until 30 September 2020. As the economy continues to open up, the Government will extend and enhance the Scheme to help businesses recover. The second phase will start on 1 October 2020 and will be available for new loans made until 30 June 2021.
On 7 April 2020, the National Cabinet agreed that state and territory jurisdictions would implement a mandatory Code of Conduct (the Code) for small-medium sized entities (SME) commercial leasing principles during COVID-19. The Code is ultimately regulated and enforced by state and territory jurisdictions. The Code of Conduct has been automatically extended with the extension of JobKeeper to 28 March 2021.
The Code applies to small to medium size enterprises and focuses on commercial tenancies (retail, office building and industrial leases) where (i) the tenant is eligible for the JobKeeper program; and (ii) the tenant has an annual turnover of $50 million or less.
The Code will help ensure SME businesses that rent their place of business are able to emerge from this challenging period and bounce back on the other side by allowing an appropriate burden share over the period and providing tenants and landlords with a framework with which to negotiate during this period. Importantly, the mandatory Code allows parties to reach tailored, bespoke and appropriate temporary arrangements for each tenant, and sets out a binding mediation process that parties should follow if they arc not able to reach an appropriate agreement.
The Government is carefully considering economic conditions and actively managing the transition of economic support to Australian businesses and households as the health and economic situation evolves. The more supportive we all are in ensuring as many businesses are in a position to continue activity after the passing of the Coronavirus pandemic, the more successful the recovery will be on the other side.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer, MrSukkar
Imports
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email of 15 June 2020 about petition EN1467, which relates to the importation of foods.
As you are aware, the Australian Government recognises the Importance of our domestic agriculture sector in Australia's food supply. The vast majority of food and beverages consumed in Australia are sourced from domestic production. Australia produces more food than it consumes, exporting around 70% of agricultural production. Keeping Australians employed in our agricultural sector is a major focus of the government. Our agricultural production outweighs domestic demand, which means that improving Australia's market access and facilitating trade opportunities is integral to supporting the sector.
Australia's prosperity is highly dependent on its position as an exporter and the willingness of the global community to engage in free trade. Australia cannot expect other countries to accept our farm produce if we are not prepared to import their agricultural and food products. As a member and beneficiary of the World Trade Organisation, Australia has an obligation to import products when the biosecurity risks of importing can be managed and import conditions can be identified to allow safe trade that protects Australia's biosecurity status.
Whilst Australia does import food and beverage products, these account for only 11% of Australia's food consumption by value. These imports play an important role in meeting consumer preferences for taste and variety. The majority of food and beverage imports are processed products, along with small amounts of out-of-season fresh produce. These products give Australians greater consumer choice, as well as driving innovation as Australian companies strive to improve their products to compete with others.
Regarding the petitioners concerns on food safety and hygiene protocols on imported food, I note that Australia has strong biosecurity and food safety systems that support us to manage potential risks to food safety and our agriculture sector and effectively respond when incidents occur. All foods imported into Australia must comply with the requirements of the Imported Food Control Act 1992 (the Act). The applicable standards under the Act are those in the Australian and New Zealand Foods Standards Code (the Code). The Code applies to all food for sale in Australia. All food imported into Australia must also comply with the Country of Origin Food Labelling information Standard 2016 and the Biosecurity Act 2015.
I also note that a report released by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resources Economics and Sciences on 17 April 2020 found Australia is one of the most food secure countries in the world. The report found that despite temporary shortages of some food items in supermarkets in March and April, caused by an unexpected surge in demand in relation to COVID-19, Australia does not have a food security problem. The report can be found at agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications.
Thank you for raising this matter. I trust this information assists the Petitions Committee.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, MrLittleproud
Homemakers
Dear Mr O'Dowd
I refer to your letter of 15 June 2020, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions concerning Petition EN1476 on the status of Australian women.
COVID-19 is an unprecedented global pandemic, and I recognise women have been disproportionately impacted. Women are on the frontlines, making up the majority of employees in essential services like health care and education. At the same time, women have lost jobs than men. The Government is closely monitoring and responding to the gender-specific effects of the virus, noting the full impacts — both social and economic — continue to evolve.
In response to the pandemic, the Government has implemented a range of targeted activities to support all Australians, particularly those most impacted by the economic downturn. This includes the JobKeeper scheme, which is benefiting many women impacted by downturns in industries such as Accommodation and Food Services and Retail Trade.
As you note in your email, there are risks the pandemic could exacerbate gender inequalities, and lead to a spike in gender-based violence. That is why the Government announced its $150 million Domestic Violence Support Package as part of its COVID-19 response, to help keep women and children safe.
The re-opening of the Australian economy post COVID-19 restrictions presents major opportunities to address gender inequalities. Australia needs everyone's full capabilities - men and women - to chart our economic and social recovery. As the Prime Minister has announced, we will refresh the Women's Economic Security Statement, which we first introduced in 2018. This will be an important part of supporting women's workforce participation in the recovery phase.
Thank you for writing to me regarding this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne
COVID-19: Health Care
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email of 15 June 2020 regarding the petition number EN1479: Waiver of Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) debts for healthcare workers. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
The Australian Government and all Australians are deeply thankful for the invaluable work of the healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients, undertaken under extraordinary conditions. The Government is also thankful for the essential work all healthcare workers continue to undertake across Australia every day during COVID-19, along with other essential workers.
The HELP enables students to access the benefits of higher education by removing upfront financial barriers. For most students, including all students accessing HECS-HELP, the Government already pays part of their tuition fees through the provision of Commonwealth supported places (C5Ps). The Government funds access and participation in higher education through HELP, as higher education plays a crucial role in creating opportunities for individuals. It is reasonable for the Government to require students who have benefitted from deferring their higher education tuition costs through HELP to repay those costs through the taxation system on an income-contingent basis.
In relation to the suggestion of waiving HELP debts for healthcare workers, repayments of HELP debts are critical to the sustainability of higher education funding to ensure HELP remains available for future students. Not all frontline healthcare workers have a HELP debt, including some aged workers. Remitting outstanding HELP debt for healthcare workers would undermine the sustainability of higher education funding and shift the whole cost of those students' higher education onto all taxpayers, including taxpayers who did not undertake higher education, or who paid for their higher education upfront.
Under our Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) system, no student needs to pay anything up front and student loans are only repaid when the student is earning over $46,620 (in 2020/21). A person on the lowest repayment threshold, which starts at 80 per cent of the median earnings for all Australian employees, will pay only $8.80 to $10.20 per week. Access to HELP is not determined by age, income or background and means that eligible students can participate in higher education without the barrier of upfront fees.
It may interest you to know that on 19 June 2020„ the Government announced the Job-ready Graduates Package (the package). The package will create 100,000 new university places by 2030 and provide additional support for students in regional and remote Australia. The Government already provides more than $18 billion a year to fund our universities and this will grow to $20 billion by 2024. With the passage of legislation, the package will commence on 1 January 2021.
The Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding clusters and student contribution bands are being simplified to make Government funding for universities clearer, simpler and more sustainable. Overall, Australian taxpayers will continue to pay more than half of the costs of CSPs, with funding prioritised to the areas of high public benefit and those most needed by the labour market. This means that CSP students studying courses in key growth areas, including nursing, will see significant reductions in their student contribution for those units. While some fields of study will see increases in student contribution amounts for units, almost 60 per cent of students will see either a reduction or no change in their student contribution.
From 1 January 2021, current students who enrol in units where the student contribution has decreased will have these reduced amounts applied. For more information about grandfathering arrangements visit www.dese.gov.au/document/better-university-fundingarrangements-reducing-complexity-and-targeting-job-ready. More information on the package can be found on the Department of Education, Skills and Employment's website at www.dese.gov.au/iob-ready.
The funding changes proposed by the Government through the package will make it more affordable for future nurses to gain their initial training, and for current nurses to retrain upskill or specialise.
Thank you again for bringing the concerns of the petitioners to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, MrTehan
Australian Constitution
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your letter of 15 June 2020 regarding Petition EN1521, seeking a public acknowledgment that the Constitution is above all laws. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
The Australian Government does not provide legal advice to the public. If the petitioners have concerns about any particular laws or have legal queries, they may wish to seek independent legal advice. However, the following comments may be of assistance.
State constitutions are preserved, subject to the Australian Constitution, by section 106 of the Australian Constitution.
State parliaments have power to make laws on any subject of relevance to that particular state. Subject to a few exceptions, the Australian Constitution does not confine the matters about which the states may make laws.
The Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws with respect to a range of subjects, many of which are described in section 51 of the Constitution. The Commonwealth's powers are generally concurrent, meaning that both the Commonwealth and the states are able to enact laws relating to subjects such as taxation, trade and commerce, and trading or financial corporations.
Where a state law is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, the Commonwealth law prevails to the extent of the inconsistency (Australian Constitution, section 109).
Finally, covering clause 5 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act provides that that Act shall be binding on the courts, judges and people of every state and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any state.
Thank you for bringing the petitioners' concerns to my attention. I hope this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General, MrPorter
COVID-19
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email dated 15 June 2020, regarding petition EN1522, which seeks an increase in the rate of Carer Payment.
Carer Payment is an income support payment to assist people who, due to the demands of their caring role, are unable to support themselves through substantial paid employment.
The Government appreciates the important ongoing role that carers play in the community and, for this reason, Carer Payment is usually paid at the highest rate of support in the social security system.
Carer Payment and other pensions are indexed in March and September each year to the higher of the increase in the Consumer Price Index and the increase in the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI). The goods and services used to calculate the PBLCI are weighted to recognise that pensioners spend more of their income on essentials. This helps to ensure that pension rates, including for Carer Payment, keep pace with changes in the costs of living for pensioners.
In addition to their main payment, Carer Payment recipients may receive a range of supplements. such as the Pension Supplement, Energy Supplement and Rent Assistance. Recipients also usually receive Carer Allowance, a separate fortnightly payment of $131.90. Carer Payment and Carer Allowance each attract an annual 5600 Carer Supplement paid in July each year.
Carers on Carer Payment also receive a Pensioner Concession Card, which entitles them to subsidised prescription medicines and Medicare services and state and territory-based concessions, such as discounts on motor vehicle registration, utility bills and rates.
As part of the Government's national response to the COVID-19 crisis, eligible pensioners, including those on Carer Payment, received two Economic Support Payments of $750. The first payment was automatically paid by Services Australia between 31 March and 17 April 2020 into the same bank account as the person's pension payment. The second payment was paid to eligible pensioners from 13 July 2020.
Additional financial support through the social security system is just one of the ways the Government is helping support individuals, communities and the economy during this health crisis.
The Government has also committed $90.7 million to boost support to Australians with disability who are at risk amid the coronavirus outbreak to help them with employment and other support services. The funding will also support a dedicated phone line (Disability Information Helpline 1800 643 787) to provide accessible information and counselling support to people with disability and their families, carers and support workers and services.
Additional support is also available to carers through the Carer Gateway, an information service for carers providing practical information and advice to help carers navigate the system of support and services. The Carer Gateway service providers will work with carers to provide individually tailored services within the carer's local area. Services include support planning, targeted financial support packages, counselling, peer support, information and advice, and where necessary, access to emergency and short-term respite.
Carers can contact the Carer Gateway on 1800 422 737 or visit www.carergateway.gov.au. Thank you again for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Families and Social Services, SenatorRuston
COVID-19: Taxation
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 June 2020, originally directed to the Treasurer, concerning Petition Ministerial Referral (EN1529) - Tax exemption for essential workers. Your correspondence has been referred to me for response.
The Australian Government is grateful to Australia's essential workers during the COV1D-19 crisis. They have shown dedication and resilience in these challenging times.
In regard to the proposal to introduce a tax exemption for essential workers, it is a principle of Australia's personal income tax system that tax should apply to an individual's income. Taxes are used to fund important government services like schools, hospitals, Medicare and roads. It would be unfair to impose income tax on only some, while not imposing it on others.
However, essential workers may benefit from the Government's tax relief for hard-working Australians, as announced in the 2019-20 Budget. The tax relief enhances the Personal Income Tax Plan first announced in the 2018-19 Budget. As a result, low- and middle-income earners will keep more of what they earn.
The Government has enhanced the Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO), which means that low- and middle-income earners will receive tax relief of up to $1,080 or up to $2,160 for dual income couples, with the additional tax relief applying from the 2018-19 income year. Eligible individuals will benefit from the LMITO after they lodge their tax return for the 2019-20 income year.
The Government has acted decisively to support households and businesses and address the significant economic consequences of the Coronavirus. A total of $259 billion is being injected into the economy in order to keep Australians in work and businesses in business.
The package is designed to support businesses to retain jobs and manage short-term cash flow challenges, provide support to individuals, severely affected communities and regions, and to ensure the continued flow of credit in the Australian economy.
The package includes:
assistance for businesses to keep people in a job;
support for households including casuals, sole-traders, retirees and those on income support; and
regulatory protection and financial support for businesses to stay in business.
More information about this package is available at: www.treasug.gov.au/coronavirus. I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer, MrSukkar
COVID-19
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 15 June 2020 to the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Peter Dutton MP, concerning petition number EN1532, requesting the Australian Government consider monitored home quarantine for Australian citizens and their families returning from Hong Kong to Australia. This matter has been referred to me as the Minister for Health.
I appreciate this is a challenging time for all Australians, particularly those living overseas or with loved ones overseas. The impacts of COVID-19, along with physical distancing and quarantine, can make people feel anxious, stressed and worried. Under these
circumstances, the Government understands why travellers from Hong Kong may wish to quarantine in their family homes, instead of in a hotel.
The medical experts guiding the Australian Government, the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee (AHPPC), continue to recommend that all travellers quarantine in a hotel for 14 days after entry in Australia. The risk of COVID-19 in travellers returning from overseas is increasing. In its 26 June 2020 statement, the AHPPC stated that there was not enough data to justify changing the current requirement for hotel quarantine.
In addition, I recognise Australian citizens and permanent residents may have exceptional or compelling reasons to travel overseas at this time, including to Hong Kong. An application for an exemption can be made online on the Department of Home Affairs website at: https://covid19.homeaffairs.gov.au/leaving-australia.
Thank you for writing on this matter. Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, MrHunt
Climate Change
Dear Chair
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 June 2020 concerning petition number PN0473 - Vote in support of the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020.
Australia is well positioned to meet the challenge of climate change. Australia has mature financial, welfare and regulatory systems, well-governed institutions, and internationally recognised scientific expertise. In addition, the proposed Bill would be premature as the Royal Commission on National Natural Disaster Arrangements has not yet finalised its inquiry.
The Australian Government has an extensive agenda in climate resilience and adaptation, backed by billions of dollars of investments. Examples include:
$5 billion for the Future Drought Fund to support Australian communities prepare for the effects of inevitable future drought
$3.9 billion for the Emergency Response Fund to support disaster-affected communities to be more prepared for and resilient to future natural disasters.
an initial $2 billion allocation for the Bushfire Recovery Agency to support communities affected by the recent bushfires build back better
$3.5 billion through the National Water Grid Authority to build water infrastructure that will strengthen drought resilience.
Government agencies are integrating disaster and climate resilience in their policies, programs and asset management. The Australian Government Disaster and Climate Resilience Reference Group is a coordinating group of senior officials which considers the risks and opportunities arising from climate change and natural disasters. It is one of the mechanisms for implementing adaptation actions.
The Government's 2015 National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy outlines a coordinated whole of-society approach. The Strategy recognises that many resilience and adaptation activities, such as land-use planning, are most effective when addressed at the local or regional level. Businesses, households and communities also have important roles in building resilience.
More information on the National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy is available on the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment website at environment.gov.au/climate-change/adaptation/strategy
Australia's 2030 target of reducing emissions by 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels is, on a per person basis, more ambitious than the European Union. Germany, Canada, New Zealand or Japan have committed to over the same period. Our 2030 target is a floor on our ambition, not a cap. The $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package maps out how we will meet our 2030 target down to the last tonne. The latest official projections show that we are on track to meet and beat our 2030 target.
As we recover from COVID-19, the Government is committed to reducing emissions without imposing new costs on households, businesses or the economy. At its core, our approach is about technology not taxes. It means reducing emissions, not reducing jobs or the economy. It is an approach based on rigour, optimism and Australian ingenuity, not ideology.
We see enormous potential in technologies like hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon sequestration and biofuels to reduce emissions in Australia and globally — all while strengthening our economy.
In May 2020, the Government released a Technology Investment Roadmap discussion paper via consultindustrv.gov.au/climate-change/technology-investment-roadmap/. Consultation on the Roadmap will inform the development of the first annual Low Emissions Technology Statement, which will identify technology priorities and ensure the Government's investment portfolio can be refined and updated over time.
Thank you for writing on this matter. I have copied this letter to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, the Hon Angus Taylor MP.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for the Environment, MsLey
PETITIONS
Statements
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:01): The reason so few petitions are being presented today is due to the parliamentary cycle and its effect on when petitions are certified and ready for presentation. There are currently 99 e-petitions open for collecting signatures which are scheduled to be presented when the House sits in October, along with any paper petitions that the committee certifies in that time.
The 43 ministerial responses to petitions in this presentation, however, are a tangible demonstration of the increasingly high level of engagement with the petitioning process at all levels.
Historically, petitions were infrequently responded to by ministers. This meant that petitioners were often not advised of the government's position on concerns that the petitions raised, and that petitioners seldom had a sense of recourse.
In 2007, a number of changes to the petitioning process were implemented following recommendations from a review by the Standing Committee on Procedure. One of these was the establishment of a Standing Committee on Petitions to, in part, facilitate a way in which ministers could respond to petitions, and be encouraged to do so.
The result has been an overwhelming increase in the number of responses received. So far this year, the committee has received 313 responses, which is about 72 per cent of petitions referred, and many more are expected. In 2007, only around half of one per cent of petitions were responded to.
While the responses do not necessarily state that the minister will take action on the petitioner's request, they do provide an explanation of the government's perspective on issues raised, which is provided directly to the petitioner and made publicly available.
I would like to thank ministers and their departmental staff for their continued efforts in providing these thorough responses in a timely manner and I look forward to further updating the House on the work of the committee.
BILLS
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2020
Report from Committee
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:04): On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, I present the committee's advisory report, incorporating dissenting reports, on the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2020, together with minutes of the proceedings.
I am pleased to make some remarks upon the tabling of the committee's report from the inquiry into the private member's bill as described. At present, Australia's system of greenhouse gas accounting and reporting is structured to be in compliance with agreements that flow from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Within this system, participating nations are responsible for measuring and reporting certain emissions data, covering what are called scope 1 and scope 2 emissions. In Australia, that happens under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme, the NGER scheme.
Contrary to the thrust or purpose of the bill under consideration, the Climate Change Authority, among others, persuasively argued that the collection reporting of scope 3 emissions should not be required at this stage under the NGER scheme. That doesn't mean that the scope 3 emission is without value in the broad conversation about the global task of achieving emissions reduction in order to prevent catastrophic climate change; it's just that there is no clear additional value and some clear redundancy in reporting scope 3 emissions under the current framework.
I'll make three further brief points. Some inquiry participants pointed to the fact that, when claims are made in relation to the role that Australian coal and gas exports might play in reducing emissions in other countries, by virtue of the comparatively lower emissions intensity that is claimed for these fuels, any such assertion does depend on some form of scope 3 estimation. Labor members of the committee, namely me and the member for Macnamara, believe this could have been more strongly reflected in the report.
The second point is in relation to the fact that a number of Australian companies do currently disclose scope 3 emissions voluntarily. On that basis, it seems important to observe that doing so is clearly possible and affordable. When considering the evidence from the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources that it couldn't be sure about the rigour of these estimates, it seems there would be some value in undertaking a limited assessment of the method, cost and accuracy of such voluntary scope 3 disclosures.
Finally, some contributors to the inquiry raised concerns about the timing and regularity of National Greenhouse Gas Inventory reporting, and, specifically, the release of quarterly emissions data by the responsible minister. As an example, the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility gave evidence as follows: 'Needless to say, there will be a diminution of public trust and confidence where the action of ministers or the outcome of some other part of governmental process involves unnecessary delay, inconsistency, a lack of transparency and the release of information in circumstances where it is less likely to be noticed or attract attention and proper scrutiny.' That is consonant with other evidence provided to the committee that building and maintaining public trust in Australia's system of greenhouse gas accounting and reporting is vital, and it does appear there are improvements the government could consider. These matters are covered in the additional comments that I and the member for Macnamara provided as part of the inquiry report.
I thank all those who made submissions or gave evidence to the inquiry and acknowledge, as always, the work of the secretariat and my fellow committee members, particularly the chair, the member for Fairfax.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (10:07): I am delighted to speak today on the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy relating to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Amendment (Transparency in Carbon Emissions Accounting) Bill 2020. I thank the deputy chair for tabling the report on my behalf.
The committee concluded not to support the passing of a bill that was put forward as a private member's bill by the member for Clark. In looking at the evidence, it was very clear that the two parts of the proposed bill should be rejected. The first part of the proposed bill suggested that the minister should report on Australia's Greenhouse Gas Inventory quarterly in the parliament. What we saw in the evidence was that the minister already presents information on quarterly and annual bases to the parliament and the public, and thus the committee decided to reject that part of the bill.
The second part of the bill referred to scope 3 emissions. It suggested that scope 3 emissions be included in Australia's emissions reporting obligations. For those who may not be familiar with them, scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 greenhouse emissions are the typical categories considered. Scope 1 and scope 2 emissions refer to the emissions that an organisation, in some shape or form, controls. Scope 1 typically refers to direct activity that a company might undertake and the emissions it gives rise to through its own operations. Scope 2 can refer to more indirect emissions, such as the purchase of electricity. Scope 1 and scope 2 emissions can be controlled by the company; they can be controlled by an organisation.
Scope 3 emissions, the very emissions that the proposed bill seeks that Australia report on, are not controlled by the organisations who would be required to report on it. Thus the committee concluded that it should not support the passing of that part of the bill on three grounds. First, it is too costly. Second, it's too complex. Third, it is inconsistent with our international reporting obligations.
You can imagine the cost and complexity if a company were to try to track and calculate all of the emissions upstream and downstream of its own activities. They would have to look at the end-to-end value chain in which it plays internationally, to try to calculate what emissions might be generated. Not only would that be resource intensive and highly complex but it would also represent double counting in the system. As the deputy chair, Josh Wilson, outlined, the international system, as it is applied today, does not support scope 3 emissions being included in calculations. It would represent double counting. What's more, it would be inconsistent with the Paris Agreement and other obligations to which Australia has already signed.
I too wish to thank the other members of the committee, the secretariat, those who submitted and those who were witnesses. However, I do wish to put on the parliament's horizon that I reject deputy chair Josh Wilson's suggestion in his speech that, as some Australian companies currently seek to calculate scope 3 emissions, it would not be costly. There is no agreed methodology in Australia for how they're calculated. I believe that is a false conclusion.
What's more, there's the fact that the International Energy Agency recognises that coal to gas represents a transition approach. Where we export our gas from Australia, it can reduce emissions by 50 per cent, on average, where end users had previously been using coal. This sort of conclusion by this committee does not take away that fact, and nor should it. In conclusion, I do not commend the bill to the House, but I am very happy to commend the report of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:13): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made in order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:13): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Environment and Energy Committee
Report
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:14): On behalf of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, I present the committee's report on the parliamentary delegation to India, 3 to 7 November 2019. I'm glad to make some remarks upon the tabling of the report in relation to the environment and energy committee delegation visit to India which occurred last November, led by the member for Fairfax and including me and the members for Warringah and Lyne.
In the course of the visit, we had the opportunity to meet with and learn from government ministers, departmental officials, local government agencies, think tank leaders, non-government organisations, industry representatives and experts in the energy and waste management sectors. It was particularly useful with respect to learning about India's energy challenges and achievements, which I think would surprise a lot of people in Australia. For example, India already derives a substantially higher proportion of its energy from renewable sources than we do here in Australia. While last year renewables contributed 24 per cent of Australia's electricity generation, India already derives 36 per cent of its energy from renewables, and it currently has a target of reaching 57 per cent of total electricity generation from renewable sources by 2027.
It's worth noting that India was the first country in the world to establish a standalone Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, first created in 1982 as the department of non-conventional energy sources. There's no doubt that, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India is making great strides in growing renewable energy, especially through the National Solar Mission. As it stands, three of the five largest solar parks in the world are located in India, and solar capacity has increased 11-fold in just the last five years. Of course, Australia is, rightly, very supportive of India's leadership of the International Solar Alliance, which was first announced at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2015. There are now 120 countries that are members of that alliance. We were the 35th to join. Both our countries should benefit from closer cooperation in future on renewable energy and related storage, distribution and system management technologies.
When the delegation was in Mumbai for the principal purpose of visiting the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, we also had the opportunity of seeing the work being done to support people living in the Dharavi slum precinct—by some reports, the largest in the world. In that community, more than a million of Mumbai's poorest citizens occupy an area of 2.4 square kilometres. In other words, twice the population of Tasmania live in an area that's only eight times as large as this Parliament House site. Some estimates suggest there is one toilet for every 1,500 people in Dharavi. Needless to say, they have faced an unimaginable challenge when it comes to dealing with the current pandemic. However, I was very glad to note in preparing for these remarks that international reports state that Mumbai health authorities working with the Dharavi community have managed this crisis quite successfully through a mass sanitisation program with the conversion of every conceivable municipal facility for health purposes and a proactive testing effort. Today, of course, India has recorded the highest single day increase in infections of any country throughout the pandemic to date, with 79,000 new infections. Our thoughts and best wishes are with the government and the citizens of India as they battle this virus.
Finally, I draw attention to the fact that for a long time we have recognised the potential to develop a much closer relationship between our countries—between Australia and India—but, in some key areas, have made too little progress. While in 2019 Australian exports to China grew by a quarter to reach 34 per cent of total exports by value, our exports to India only make up 4.5 per cent of total export value, and that number fell slightly in 2019. When we consider the imperative of trade diversification, we simply have to do much better when it comes to countries like India and Indonesia.
I conclude by again giving thanks for the organisational support the delegation received from the committee secretariat and from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade staff in New Delhi and Mumbai, and I acknowledge the spirit of friendship and hospitality in which we were received in India.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (10:18): I'm delighted to speak on the delegation report, and I again thank the deputy chair for tabling this in the House. The visit of the representatives from the Standing Committee on Environment and Energy to India last November was of enormous value. The primary purpose of the visit was to inform an inquiry we had at the time looking into the prerequisites for introducing nuclear energy to Australia. As a country with demonstrable expertise in that field, the committee learnt a great deal from India. We also learnt about the challenges India faces in its own transition to a cleaner energy mix as well as some of its challenges in the areas of waste management and recyclables.
As any of these international delegations prove to be, there were surprises in this one. There were three big takeaways for me. Firstly, India, like Australia, is facing its own challenges when it comes to issues of climate change and indeed the energy debate. Of course their challenges are very different from ours because of the magnitude of the economies, the population, and we come from a different starting place. But India, like Australia, is a very rich democracy, and it would come as no surprise to members of the House that when we visited some agencies and institutions, government ministers and members of civil society we heard a diverse range of views, including on the issues of energy and of course of nuclear power.
The second big takeaway for me was with regard to India's view of Australia—in particular, the very high regard in which Australian resources are held and the arrangement that we have with India with respect to uranium and an acknowledgement of the depths of Australia's reserves in that regard.
The third big takeaway was technology. India is investing the most enormous amount of technology to improve its energy. Again, its challenges are very different from ours, yet here's something we definitely do have in common and in abundance—that is, a reliance on technology. And when our own minister introduced the Technology Investment Road Map earlier this year, India was very quick, because, again, we had an example in a country that is investing in technology—technology right across the field—from renewables through to the use of fossil fuels. In the area of nuclear energy, something we learnt a lot about, Indian institutes are reducing nuclear waste through the closed cycle systems through explorations. It really is world leading, and it was a great privilege for the committee to learn firsthand from some of those experts.
If I can close with a comment about India and Australia more generally. Along with other members of our House, I feel deeply about some of the challenges faced by India today through this pandemic. We share such a rich common set of values as democracies, and the relationship between the leader of our country and theirs, I believe, is symptomatic of the fondness that Australians feel towards the people of India. As our small parliamentary visit indicated, the relationship is not just at a parliamentary level but indeed with members of India's civil society. Hopefully, that relationship through trade, people to people and cultural exchange can only continue to expand as time goes on. Thanks very much.
Mr JOSH WILSON: I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (10:24): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Exploitation of Indigenous Culture) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by MrKatter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (10:26): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
We canvassed the five 'souvenir shops', for the sake of a better word, in Cairns, and, of the 35 items for sale that could roughly be described as Indigenous, 32 had been made principally in China, Indonesia or India; only three had been manufactured in Australia. This bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Exploitation of Indigenous Culture) Bill 2020, will create 200 to 300 jobs, if we proceed with it. It is a disgrace to this nation and it is a shame to every one of us, as Australians, that we will not give the First Australians a fair go. Every time that the issue is raised, we throw a stack of money at it, which all ends up in white pockets. Again and again in this House, I have heard people in positions of leadership saying that most of the money is going to black pockets, but it is estimated that, of the money that is allocated, for every dollar going to a black person, a First Australian, $3 is going into white pockets. Wilson Tuckey, in this place, who was chairman of the committee, said again and again that it should be bottoms up: the money should be put in a box, chained and locked up and sent to the community areas; if it goes astray there, at least it goes astray to black people, not white people. And I make no apologies for using those terms in this place. For the sake of the House, I come from a little town called Cloncurry, and we're very proudly always referred to as 'the Murri from the Curry'. 'Murri', where I come from, means blackfella. All of us are a bit dark; who knows where we all came from, nor does anyone worry about it.
The jobs—and pride and self-confidence—that would be created by this bill are estimated to be nearly 300 in number. If you doubt that for a moment, have a look at the paintings. The paintings are a huge industry in Australia. The industry was started off on the Lutheran mission at Hermannsburg by that very famous artist Albert Namatjira, but now there is a plethora of paintings. It's very seldom that you walk into a rich person's house in Australia and they won't have some of that art in their house. It's very expensive, as it should be. It's very, very fine artwork and it gives you a feeling that you're an Australian if you've got a bit of it on the walls.
It gives me no joy to tell the people of Australia, through this parliament, that the lowest life expectancy in the world is amongst our First Australians—identifiable First Australians, not people like me. We have the highest stolen children rate in the world, and the shame of this parliament is that we had the hypocrisy to stand up here—and I did not have the courage to walk out, which I should have done—and apologise for stealing the children back in the early 1900s, when in fact today we are stealing them at twice the rate that they were stolen then. This is not a secret—all the details were given on the front of The Sydney Morning Herald, one of the most prominent newspapers in this country. But I don't need The Sydney Morning Herald to tell me that. When you see the extent of the hypocrisy, how the people in this place are not hated by First Australians I do not know. I suspect that maybe we are, and we deserve to be for our towering hypocrisy.
Our incarceration rates are the highest in the world. That very great Australian Noelie Pearson debated this against three or four people on one of those shows, and they had him back again and again, and he absolutely proved that the incarceration rates for identifiable First Australians were the highest of any grouping anywhere in the world. As to the suicide rate, I wouldn't have to tell anyone that this group of people has the highest suicide rate.
Versus that, on the positive side, we blackfellas have battered our way, with absolutely no tools at our disposal, to have a paintings industry, one of the best indigenous paintings industries in the world. I would say it is the best—not that I've ever been overseas—in the world.
As I speak, the communications minister has refused to give people the right to online casino gambling. For those who say it promotes it: the government itself has said there's over $2,000 million being spent each year on overseas online gambling. But in America they looked after their Red Indians, their indigenous peoples. They gave them casino licences, and they have prospered under those casino licences. Is every person in this country that owns a casino a dirty low-life? Is it going to make gambling worse in these communities? Those of us who know what's going on know it couldn't possibly get any worse. And also First Australians are not the sort of people who go online gambling. So this House and this parliament continue to send 2,000 to sit on their hands while $2,000 million is going offshore every year instead of going into a group of people who have the lowest life expectancy in the world, the highest stolen children rate in the world, the highest incarceration rates in the world and the highest suicide rate in the world. If you have any doubts as to the people's ability to run this, they are in constant touch with the people running it in the United States, and there will be one or two of them who will be brought over here—and one of them has migrated already to Australia—and they will be very heavily involved.
As to the people controlling this, there's Freddie Pascoe, the only blackfella to ever get elected in a whitefella community in Australian history. He runs Delta Downs, which, arguably, is the biggest cattle station in Australia. He and Paulie Edwards have run it for nearly 50 years and very successfully. If you run a cattle station successfully for 50 years, you're pretty damn good. These blokes were ringers on the station when they were young blokes.
If you think we can't do it, look at the dreaming trail at Mossman Gorge. I gave enough money for a shed and one wage. They now employ 100 people. I counted over 100 cars in their huge, elaborate bitumen car park. And no whitefella had anything to do with it. Roy Gibson did the whole thing himself. He's the captain of the local Sharks Rugby League team, too, I might add.
Our timber rights have been taken off us. Our water rights have been taken off us. Our quarrying rights have been taken off us. Our cattle have gone from 36,000 to zero. The trusses industry, worth $7 million a year, has been taken off us. The block-making factory, worth $10 million a year, has been taken off us. Give us something back! I turn over to my very worthy colleague, God bless her.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order. Is the motion seconded?
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (10:34): I second the motion. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Exploitation of Indigenous Culture) Bill 2020 strives to prevent the exploitation of Indigenous culture and ensure fair compensation to Indigenous artists. Currently royalties are not always returned to the original artist, and the exploitation of Indigenous art and Indigenous style art is rife. In 2016 the Indigenous Art Centre Alliance estimated that up to 80 per cent of the products sold on the souvenir market were made overseas, with little or no benefit to Indigenous artists or communities. So I want to ensure that Indigenous artists and groups are appropriately compensated for their art, especially if it's mass-produced elsewhere.
Some may argue that the successful prosecution of Birubi Art in the Federal Court last year demonstrates that Indigenous artists are sufficiently protected under the current legislation. However, it has been found that the same company has since reformed, under a different banner, and continues to distribute Indigenous style products with a 'Made in Indonesia' tag. So, despite litigation, no royalties go to Indigenous artists for these products
Indigenous artists continue to face myriad issues beyond those covered by the bill. Indigenous artists are often inadequately compensated for original artworks. This is about protecting artists and culture. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art and designs can be licensed and turned into merchandise because of the images and stories they present—an expression of the distinctive culture of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. There is huge pride in Australia in Indigenous culture and art, from all Australians, and it is the government's duty to ensure we do everything possible to protect Indigenous art.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
NOTICES
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ) (10:37): I inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 110, the honourable member for Kennedy has withdrawn notice No. 2 standing in his name. The order of precedence of remaining private members' business, as determined by the Selection Committee's report presented to the House on 26 August 2020, remains unchanged.
MOTIONS
Sheean, Ordinary Seaman Edward (Teddy)
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (10:37): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the decision to award Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean our highest military honour, the Victoria Cross for Australia;
(2) recognises the heroic acts of Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean on 1 December 1942 will see him be the first Australian Navy sailor to receive the Victoria Cross; and
(3) acknowledges that an investiture ceremony that befits the magnitude of the award and its significance to Australia will be held at an appropriate time noting current COVID-19 restrictions.
Edward 'Teddy' Sheean was born on 28 December 1923 at Lower Barrington in north-west Tasmania. He was the 14th child to James and Mary Jane Sheean. After working as a farm labourer he enlisted in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve in Hobart on 21 August 1941. Soon after, young Teddy found himself on board the newly commissioned Bathurst class corvette HMAS Armidale. Teddy was the youngest and the most junior sailor on board, and he was employed as a cook's hand and gun loader. The Armidale was deployed carrying out escort duties along the eastern Australian coastline and in New Guinean waters.
On 29 November 1942, HMAS Armidale sailed for Japanese occupied Timor, in company with HMAS Castlemaine and HMAS Kuru. Her mission? To withdraw the 2/2 Independent Rifle Company as well as landing Dutch troops in the area of operations. On 1 December 1942 the Armidale and the Kuru came under sustained attack from enemy aircraft. Despite requests for air support, no support was forthcoming. Soon after 1400 hours the Armidale became separated and her 149 crew were now under direct attack from no fewer than 30 enemy aircraft. She and her crew were receiving effective fire and in an extremely dire position. The corvette manoeuvred frantically as she reacted to contact. At 1515 hours a torpedo struck her dead port side; another struck the engineering spaces; and, finally, a bomb struck aft. As she listed heavily to the port side, Lieutenant Commander David Richards gave the order to abandon ship. The survivors leapt into the sea and were subsequently strafed, or gunned down, by enemy aircraft with machine gun fire.
Our young 18-year-old Tasmanian, Teddy Sheean, was caught in the thick of it. He knew what that meant, he knew where he was and he knew the dire situation he and his mates were in. He had witnessed what was going on from his position at the port side life raft station, where he assisted another sailor, a bloke by the name of Ted Pellet, to cut a life raft free. Pellet would go on to testify as to what he saw and what happened next.
It is at this time, at the port side life raft, with his crewmates being shot at in the water and with a clear escape route in front of him in the raft, that this young sailor's remarkable act of courage and bravery begins. Teddy is at the life raft, with an escape route in front of him. He turns towards the aft deck—which, by the way, is at an approximate 50-degree angle due to the port side sinking fast. Teddy knows at this time that leaving the safety and sanctity of the life raft station will mean almost certain death. But he then climbs up the deck to the aft Oerlikon gun. Teddy Sheean straps himself to the gun, loaded, and begins to engage enemy aircraft which are strafing and killing his mates in the water. In doing so Teddy is wounded, but not before downing two enemy aircraft as well as providing harassing and covering fire for his shipmates in the water. Within minutes the Armidale sinks below the waves, dragging Teddy down with her to his death. Eyewitnesses report tracer fire coming from Teddy's gun as the ship disappears beneath the waves. Just 49 Australian sailors survive that attack.
In subsequent weeks, the Armidale's captain submitted his official report. However, given the circumstances surrounding the compilation of the report, some errors and omissions of critical facts have since been recognised. Teddy Sheean would also be recognised, and to that end Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean was awarded a Mention in Despatches for his actions on board the Armidale on 1 December 1942. On 1 May 1999 a Collins class submarine was commissioned the HMAS Sheean, in Teddy's honour. It is the only ship in the Royal Australian Navy to bear the name of a sailor.
Almost 80 years after that tragic military battle, and following much scrutiny and investigation on behalf of the government, appropriate recognition will now be afforded to this brave and courageous young sailor. Following the Prime Minister's recommendation and subsequent approval by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean is to be posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for Australia. In doing so, Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean becomes the first member of the Royal Australian Navy to be awarded Australia's highest award for valour. Teddy is the 101st Australian, and the 15th Tasmanian, to receive the Victoria Cross. A proud and grateful state, Tasmania has the honour of being home to more Victoria Cross recipients per capita than any other state or territory in the nation. The award of the Victoria Cross for Australia is our pre-eminent award for valour. The Victoria Cross is the declaration for recording recognition of persons who, in the presence of the enemy, perform acts of the most conspicuous gallantry or daring, or pre-eminent acts of valour or self-sacrifice.
Today this parliament recognises the supreme act of valour and sacrifice from Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean. In doing so, I would furthermore urge all Australians to consider the 100 Australian sailors who were killed during that action in this tragic event. I would urge them, also, to consider the bravery and the suffering of those 49 survivors on board the Armidale that day, and, indeed, the torment that they would have endured for the remainder of their lives. Today I urge Australians to reflect on courage, devotion to duty and the sacrifice that all men and women of our Defence Force make in defending our nation.
It is also important to consider that some things in history may be forgotten, but one thing that will always remain in the minds of Australians is the sacrifice made by our sailors, our soldiers and our airmen. Importantly, today, as a proud and grateful nation we collectively bow our heads and think back to that tragic day in December 1942. We remember the devastating loss of life due to war. Today we as a parliament stand united; we as a nation bow our heads. We give thanks for our freedom and our security. We remember that young 18-year-old from a farm in Tassie, that young bloke from the lower decks. We stand together, one and all, and we say: we'll never forget Teddy Sheean.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Is the motion seconded?
Mrs Archer: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:45): I'm pleased to support this motion from the member for Braddon. I note that, like many of his coalition colleagues, the member was a late convert to the campaign for a Victoria Cross for Teddy Sheean. If I recall, he said he was satisfied with the government's initial decision, in May, not to posthumously award the VC and said the Prime Minister had taken the right decision. I think it's pretty clear that, when he saw the huge community backlash, he had a change of heart, which is when he and some of his Tasmanian colleagues started lobbying the Prime Minister. So I'm sure he too welcomed the Prime Minister's backflip on 10 August, when he announced that Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean would finally be awarded our highest military honour, the Victoria Cross for Australia. After nearly 80 years, it was the right decision, and overdue.
Teddy Sheean showed extraordinary bravery, sacrificing his own life to save and protect his comrades. He was only 18 when he died on board HMAS Armidale on 1 December 1942. He refused the chance to board a life raft when his ship was sinking, returning to his anti-aircraft gun and going down with the ship while defending his shipmates from enemy attack. What courage. These exploits are the stuff of legend and have been immortalised in Dale Marsh's painting at the Australian War Memorial, and Lee Kernaghan's song 'Teddy Sheean—Forever Eighteen'. And now there are even plans for a movie celebrating his life.
Teddy's family and supporters and our veterans community can be proud they did not give up the fight to see, finally, justice for Teddy. But the reality is that it should not have taken this long and it should not have taken yet another review to do the right thing, and the government cannot take credit for this outcome. Its handling of this whole process has been a complete shambles and a trashing of good process. First, after the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal unanimously recommended that Teddy be awarded a posthumous VC, following its 2019 review, its report was buried by the government for nearly a year. The Minister for Defence Personnel supported the tribunal's recommendation, but he was rolled by his colleagues. Then the Minister for Defence had to correct the record because she got the facts so wrong that the tribunal chair felt compelled to write to her, calling her out in relation to the matter. The Prime Minister said that one of the reasons for not recommending the VC was that he didn't want to offend the Queen. Good grief, what a pathetic excuse by the Prime Minister. There was a robo-poll from the Liberal Party pollster, quizzing Tasmanians on whether it was important to them that Teddy's actions were recognised. Finally, after sustained pressure from Labor, Tasmanians, the veterans community and Teddy's family and supporters, the Prime Minister ordered a review of the review, because he couldn't simply admit that he got it wrong. Labor then revealed that two of his review panel members were paid more than $60,000 for six weeks work to state what was obvious to everyone—everyone except the Prime Minister perhaps. What a saga.
On top of this, Labor requested government advice and correspondence on this matter under freedom of information, and we received a small number of documents—some of which were heavily redacted or blacked out—but only after the Prime Minister's announcement on 10 August. What a disgrace—and a further breach of process. The documents reveal the Prime Minister and defence department were stubbornly opposed to a retrospective VC for Teddy because they thought there was not enough evidence of his bravery, and it would also undermine the integrity of the honours system and open the floodgates to other applications. For example, as late as May this year, the Prime Minister was writing to the Tasmanian Premier, justifying his decision on these bogus grounds. Of course, I and many others, including current and former tribunal members, have all shown these arguments to be utterly baseless.
Firstly, the tribunal's 2019 review found compelling new evidence of Teddy's bravery which clearly met the standard for a VC—even before the Prime Minister's latest review found even more evidence. Secondly, the Prime Minister ignored the awarding of two posthumous VCs to British naval personnel, and the tribunal found Sheean's actions exceeded those of very similar cases. Thirdly, the expert panel said there was unlikely to be a flood of applications, given Teddy's case was so extraordinary. So, if anything undermined the integrity of the whole honours and awards system, it was the Prime Minister's decision to ignore the tribunal.
Contrary to the member for Braddon's previous claims, Labor hasn't been trying to politicise this issue or say it was parliament's role to award the VC. All we're trying to say is that the government should have accepted the recommendations of the independent umpire, the tribunal. After all, it was Labor that established this body to independently consider honours and awards, outside of Defence, and to keep the politics out of these decisions—and, in government, we've always accepted its recommendations. It was this government that politicised the issue by ignoring the panel of experts on the tribunal and setting up a review of the tribunal's own review. It undermined the role of the tribunal and it sets a dangerous precedent, as its future recommendations could be dismissed at the whim of a future government and future politicians. That's not a good process. So, all up, this was a terrible process with a just result in the end.
As the Prime Minister's panel report admitted, the 'true story of Sheean had always been there'. But, if that's the case, why did it take another review to tell us that Teddy was a hero and deserved a VC? It's clear this was a cynical exercise designed to give the government political cover to back the 2019 inquiry findings as the tide of public opinion in Tasmania and elsewhere swung in behind a VC for Teddy.
Now Teddy is our 101st VC, as the motion acknowledges, and the first Australian Navy sailor to receive our highest military honour. It's worth noting that Australia's Navy community campaigned long and hard for this, and was highly critical of the government's initial snub of Teddy. Former naval officer and military historian Tom Lewis has argued that Teddy Sheean and other naval servicemen had been unjustly overlooked for the Victoria Cross in the past. As Dr Lewis has pointed out, during World War II every approval for Navy gallantry awards had to go through London, while the other two forces had their awards approved here. In Teddy's case, his initial mention in dispatches was based on a 'hastily written' report which failed to do justice to his actions and even misspelt his name. This award will go a long way towards overcoming the manifest individual injustice perpetrated upon Teddy. But it's also long overdue recognition for our gallant men and women of the Navy. It also follows representations from the Naval Association of Australia, representing current and former Navy personnel, who wrote to the Prime Minister over his earlier decision to reject the VC and slammed Defence's attempts to undermine the tribunal.
Finally, I want to congratulate the veterans community; Teddy's family and supporters, and his nephew Gary Ivory in particular; and fellow Tasmanians who campaigned so strongly over many years to recognise Teddy's bravery in the way he deserves. I want to congratulate and recognise my Labor caucus colleagues, especially my Tasmanian colleagues, who worked very hard in seeking justice for Teddy. They include the member for Lyons, who is also speaking on this motion. I know Teddy's birthplace of Lower Barrington falls in his electorate, and he's been a passionate advocate for the young farm labourer turned war hero.
We hope an investiture ceremony befitting the magnitude of the award and its significance to Australia can be held at an appropriate time, noting the current COVID-19 restrictions. I note Garry Ivory said he hoped the event would be live streamed or televised—and I think that's a terrific idea—so that all Australians can celebrate Teddy's extraordinary achievements.
Teddy Sheean is a great Australian hero, and this is a VC for all the Australian people. Teddy embodies courage, mateship and self-sacrifice, and in these challenging times his example should be inspirational to all of us. As a nation we will be forever grateful for his service, dedication and sacrifice. I commend the motion to the chamber.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (10:55): This year we mark the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II. It is fitting that, with this anniversary, we look to the lives of the men and women who fought and died for our country. There wouldn't be many in our country, and especially in my home state of Tasmania, who would be unaware of the valour of Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean. I've spoken here before on his extraordinary actions.
Today I want to speak of the beloved son, brother and friend who lost his life at the tender age of 18. He is a hero, but the threads that reach back through history to his valour and his loss are the memories of those who loved him. Who better to tell that story than those who knew him best. I'd like to share the words I received from June Hale, daughter of one of Teddy's elder sisters. June says:
Edward (Teddy) Sheean was born in Barrington Tasmania on 23 December 1923. He was one of 16 children, born to James and Mary Sheean.
Teddy and his brother Thomas, otherwise known as Mick, joined the Navy while Bert, Fred, Bill and Albert, otherwise known as Janie, joined the Army. Two other brothers, Allan and Jim, were equally hard working, staying behind to work the land.
His sisters were Florence Shea, Amy Gillam, Ivy Hayes and Nell Ivory. Four more children younger than Teddy did not survive.
June goes on to say:
Teddy's photo sat on our mantelpiece our entire lives—it never left. It was only taken down to dust, but was always put back in the same place.
It remained there until the day his sister Ivy Hayes passed away, when it went with her to her final resting place.
Ivy, along with her remaining brothers and sisters, was told Teddy would never receive a VC so they just relished that he would have a submarine named in his honour.
And so on 1st May 1999 the HMAS Sheean was launched in Adelaide. Our mother, who was becoming quite frail by then, made it to the launching along with her only surviving brother Bert, and astounded everyone with her resilience at not only being able to make the trip, but addressed the crowd with a heart rending speech, which not only stunned the gathering, but her family as well.
Almost three years later, on 23rd February 2001, the HMAS Sheean was commissioned in Fremantle along with the Collins Class submarine Dechaineaux and once again, Teddy's sister Ivy Hayes, now 90 years of age managed the long flight to Perth WA.
Ivy was a very humble lady, and struggled with the title of 'Commissioning Lady' because her younger brother Bert was by her side, but she was informed it had to be a woman to commission the submarine.
So at the ripe old age of 90, with no notes, nor practice, she delivered a speech straight from the heart that is still spoken about in Naval circles.
When the HMAS Sheean made its inaugural trip into Devonport, Ivy stood on the banks of the Mersey River and watched it sail into port. She said she felt Teddy had finally come home.
June goes on:
Teddy's mother was given an oak leaf when he was mentioned in dispatches, a tiny medal that our mother held in her hand, saying it didn't seem very much for someone who had given their life for their country.
The painting which now hangs in the Australian War Memorial in Canberra was too painful for his family to view every day, but depicted the heroic deed of this young man.
How would Teddy feel about all of this? From what we know, he would be extremely humbled, unlike his siblings, if only they had been around. They will be having one huge celebration at a deed well done.
The fight began over 30 years ago to award Teddy a VC.
Thank you, Garry Ivory and Guy Barnett for your never give up attitude, your resilience when it appeared all hope was lost and your true meaning of the HMAS Sheean motto 'Fight on.' You have done yourselves and Teddy and his family proud.
Mission accomplished.
Thank you, June, for sharing your personal memories that help add to the story of Teddy's life. I am sure he could not have imagined how his story would play out almost 80 years later. The Victoria Cross awarded to Teddy rightfully bestows appropriate recognition of his acts of gallantry. Lest we forget.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (11:00): I thank the member for Braddon for moving this motion, and it does give me great pride to stand here to speak to it. This private member's motion follows my own in June this year on the same subject, in which I made the following remark:
The matter of whether Teddy Sheean deserves a Victoria Cross is settled. The 2019 report of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal outlines in comprehensive and compelling detail why the Tasmanian 18-year-old should be awarded the Commonwealth's most distinguished military honour.
I am pleased to be able to stand here just three months later knowing that Teddy Sheean has finally been awarded the Victoria Cross that his selfless actions merited.
The member for Braddon and I share Teddy Sheean. Teddy was born in Lower Barrington in the north-west of my electorate, but he grew up in La Trobe, a few short kilometres away from his birthplace but just over the Lyons border in Braddon. It is fair to say that the people of Latrobe claim Teddy as theirs, and I am sure that in the years is to come an appropriate memorial will be erected in the town to mark the fact that he has now been awarded the Victoria Cross. I look forward to that day.
The campaign to see Teddy Sheean awarded the Victoria Cross has been one of decades. None has waged it longer than Garry Ivory, a nephew of Teddy's, and Guy Barnett, a former Tasmanian senator and now a minister in the Tasmanian Liberal government. Without the tireless efforts and dedication of these two men, Teddy would not have received the Victoria Cross that his actions had merited. It is right that Garry and Guy be acknowledged as the primary drivers of this campaign. But it is necessary to point out that this day would not have arrived if it had not been for the dedication to duty of the independent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, which recommended that Teddy be awarded the Victoria Cross; it would not have arrived if not for the efforts of tens of thousands of ordinary Australians who put their names to petitions and postcards demanding that the Prime Minister reverse his initial decision to refuse to abide by the tribunal's recommendation; it would not have arrived if Tasmanian Senator Jacqui Lambie had not, in her own unique and less than subtle way, shamed the government and its Tasmanian MPs; and it most certainly would not have arrived if it had not been for Labor leader Anthony Albanese declaring that a future Labor government would abide by the recommendation of the independent tribunal and grant the Victoria Cross to Teddy Sheean if this government did not.
These combined efforts, some led by the community and others by elected parliamentarians of all stripes, resulted in the Prime Minister revisiting the issue. As a face-saving exercise, he did not reverse his refusal immediately but constituted a new panel to review the appeals tribunal's recommendation—an appeals panel of an appeals panel. The findings of the new panel, headed by former Liberal leader Brendan Nelson, were never in doubt. This time the PM accepted the recommendation and made the request of Her Majesty, and Teddy Sheean finally was granted the VC his actions merited.
On the day the Prime Minister made the announcement, I was in Triabunna, a small town on the east coast of my electorate. I was sitting in my car just before heading to a meeting, and a man tapped on my window. You never know what you'll get when someone taps on your window, but this was a good one. He wanted to thank me for my efforts in the Teddy Sheean campaign and the thousands of postcards I'd collected and forwarded on to the PM, and he asked, 'Has there been an update?' I was delighted to let him know that, just 30 minutes beforehand, the Prime Minister had announced that he would recommend Teddy for the VC.
Last week I received two cards from constituents who had sent in postcards asking the PM to reverse his initial refusal. Catherine thanked me for giving her the opportunity to be involved in the cause, while Lynn said she was over the moon at the result. Neither of these women knew Teddy. They have no links to him other than being Tasmanian. The same can be said for most who signed and sent in their postcards. People often included small notes and personal touches, and many were from veterans who included their service numbers and records. Every single person who sent in a postcard was invested. They cared enough to fill in the details, pay for a stamp and put their postcard in a letterbox. Their request was a simple one—that the Prime Minister abide by the recommendation of the independent tribunal. There was nothing in it personally for the 2,000 Tasmanians who sent in their postcards—no prize, no recognition. They just wanted to right a historical wrong. They knew down to their guts that an 18-year-old kid born in Lower Barrington who'd died a hero, thousands of miles from home, firing a gun aboard a sinking ship and saving his shipmates, deserved the Victoria Cross. Lest we forget.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (11:05): Teddy Sheean is no ordinary hero. His story is an extraordinary one, highlighting the courage, sacrifice and bravery of many of our service men and women. The decision to award Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean our highest individual honour, the Victoria Cross for Australia, is well deserved. I thank our Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, for his leadership in ensuring that Teddy's case was thoroughly examined and justice was ultimately done and for honouring another man of honour. In doing so, I pass on the appreciation of so many in our community to the Prime Minister for his tenacity to see this through, even as he leads our nation through very challenging times. It's a privilege to be part of a government whose leader has made a recommendation to the Governor-General for the award of the Victoria Cross for Australia to such an extraordinary man.
Teddy was heroic, and he deserves to be remembered for his incredible courage. Following in the footsteps of his four brothers, Teddy joined the armed forces at a young age, serving aboard the newly commissioned HMAS Armidale as an anti-aircraft gun loader. In December 1942, HMAS Armidale came under attack from Japanese bombers in the Arafura Sea. The vessel was struck by two air-launched torpedoes, and the order was given to abandon ship. As the crew leapt into the sea, Teddy assisted in freeing a life raft and was hit by two bullets, wounding him in the chest and back. Scrambling to get across the deck, he began shooting at the Japanese to protect his fellow sailors. With these actions the Japanese aircraft were kept at bay and were unable to effectively strike those in the water. As HMAS Armidale continued to sink, Teddy maintained fire, managing to shoot down one of the bombers and damaging a further two aircraft before HMAS Armidale's stern was immersed by the sea. Teddy fought until he tragically disappeared beneath the waves. These actions are why Teddy will become the first Australian Navy sailor to receive the Victoria Cross, a truly distinct honour.
The service and the sacrifice shown by Teddy Sheean is truly honourable. Whilst he had the opportunity to save his own life he instead placed others before himself. This is an incredible example of the character displayed by so many Australians who have fought for us—for our nation—in World War I, World War II and other wars that followed. It reflects the sacrifice of those who did not have the opportunity to return home to their loved ones and it reflects the courage displayed by all who have served our nation and who have fought for the freedoms we all enjoy today.
There's broad support for this decision from the service men and women in my electorate. Greg Mawson from Gosford RSL referred to the superhuman acts demonstrated by Teddy. He said: 'Teddy knew he faced a certain death but still went above and beyond for his fellow sailors. His acts of courage elevate him to this prestigious category. Teddy deserves this recognition.' John George, from Brisbane Water Legacy, spoke of the immense pride by those in the veteran community that one of their own would be recognised with the Victoria Cross. John told me of the efforts of Teddy's family, other returned veterans and many, many others in the community, as referred to by the member for Lyons, who campaigned for this outcome. John said that this is tangible recognition of the courage and sacrifice that so many Australians have shown when the chips are down in combat: 'No greater love can be shown than when a man lays down his life for others. In war this happens frequently, but only a few are recognised.' John said that Sheean's award not only recognises him but all his shipmates and all who served our nation, including in World War II, a war that ended 75 years ago. Terry Saxby, from Terrigal Wamberal RSL, wanted to pass on his personal thanks to all those who made this award possible and said that Teddy's family could be rightly proud of him and what he did.
It is clear to all of us that Teddy's actions represent the very best of what it means to be human, what it means to serve and to sacrifice for the sake of others, what courage and mateship ultimately mean and what it means to be Australian. I commend the recommendation of this distinct honour and its approval by Her Majesty the Queen, and I look to the day in coming months when Teddy's family can accept the award of the Victoria Cross for Australia on Teddy's behalf from our Governor-General. Lest we forget.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Environment
Employment
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (11:10): I move:
That this House:
(1) welcomes the release of the Auditor-General's report, Referrals, Assessments and Approvals of Controlled Actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act);
(2) notes that Australia is currently experiencing an environmental crisis and jobs crisis, and the Auditor-General's report confirms the Government has failed on both counts;
(3) further notes the damning findings from the Auditor-General including that:
(a) there has been a 510 per cent increase in the average delays for approval decisions since the Liberals and Nationals were elected (between 2014-15 and 2018-19);
(b) between 2014-15 and 2018-19, delays to environmental approvals for jobs and investment from major projects exploded from 19 days on average to 116 days;
(c) 79 per cent of approvals assessed were non-compliant or contained errors;
(d) in 2018-19, 95 per cent of key decisions (referral, assessment method, approval), were made outside the statutory time frames, with just 5 per cent of decisions being made on time;
(e) conflicts of interest are not managed;
(f) reporting arrangements are not consistent with the EPBC Act; and
(g) projects or environmental outcomes are not being monitored;
(4) acknowledges the extraordinary nature of these findings, which make up one of the most damning reports published by the Auditor-General to date;
(5) notes that:
(a) the report reveals the extent to which Government cuts to the environment department, which are estimated to be 40 per cent since 2013, has smashed the department's capacity to make good, timely decisions to create jobs and protect the environment; and
(b) Government cuts and mismanagement (Liberal party blue-tape) is at the heart of job and investment delays, poor quality decisions and legal challenges; and
(6) calls on the Government to:
(a) take responsibility for their abject failure on the environment and jobs; and
(b) stop tying up projects and strangling the environment with Liberal party blue tape which is delaying jobs and investment, putting a handbrake on our economy, failing to protect iconic Australian species like the koala and allowing the state of our natural environment to rapidly decline.
I regret to say that Australia is in the middle of a jobs crisis and an environmental crisis, and the Morrison government is failing on both counts. Never has that been made more starkly clear than in the most recent Auditor-General's office report, Referrals, assessment and approvals of controlled actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This is perhaps the most damning Auditor-General report that anyone in this place has seen for some time. The language is uncharacteristically blunt, and it's no wonder, when you look at some of the outcomes that the Auditor-General found in relation to this government's administration of decision-making under the EPBC Act. Why is that import? It's important for a few reasons.
It's important because the fact is Australia is in the middle of an extinction crisis. Environmental protection has been woeful under this government. This government has taken the axe to the environment department since the day it was elected. When this government was first elected, it cut hundreds of jobs out of the environment department, and we're seeing the consequence of that now, years later. It's also important because jobs and investment depend on well-made, timely decisions under the EPBC Act. This is the legislation under which projects are approved. It's very important that the decisions be made on time, where there's no reason for delay, and well. Decisions need to be of a high quality, and they need to be litigation-proof, having been made well and properly in the first place. But this government's cuts have been woeful, and they have led to absolute tragedies in relation to decision-making under this legislation.
The Auditor-General found that there had been a massive blowout in delays in decision-making. If you look at it, there's actually been a 510 per cent increase in the average delays for approval decisions since the Liberals and Nationals were elected. Between financial year 2014-15 and 2018-19, delays to environmental approvals for jobs and investment for major projects exploded, from 19-day delays to on average 116 days. Really concerningly, in financial year 2018-19, 95 per cent of key decisions were being made outside of statutory time frames. Every single one of these delays, where it's not necessary—where it's being done because of funding cuts and workloads, not because of legitimate reasons—means delays for jobs and delays for investment. That's why it's really important that the government face up to the damage it has done to our economy through its attacks on the environment department as well as the damage it has wrought on our environment, our species and our habitats.
The other thing, as I mentioned, that has been absolutely terrible under this government is the quality of decision-making. If you have poor-quality decision-making, not only do you expose these decision to litigation, which means more delay, but you also expose the decisions to just being wrong. This is crucial legislation. The future of our nation's environment and species depends on decisions being made correctly. This government, in allowing its decisions to be made poorly, is running decision-making into the ground. For example, the Auditor-General said that 79 per cent of the decisions that it considered were either affected by error or non-compliant. This is a significant problem. What's happened here is that the government, after being elected, has come in with an ideological agenda, an anti-environment agenda, and it hasn't given any thought to how that agenda might affect decision-making, the approval of major projects and the certainty for business, industry, investment and jobs. So they've taken the axe to the department. The government has cut an estimated 40 per cent of environment department funding since being elected—40 per cent. Imagine the damage that that causes. In fact, you don't have to imagine it, because the Auditor-General has published this quite scathing and blunt report.
The other thing I want to mention that this report made really clear is a governance failure. This report said, 'Conflicts of interest are not managed.' Remember this is a department that considers tens of billions of dollars of projects. Clearly the risk of conflicts needs to be managed, but this government has failed to make sure that people can have trust and confidence in the environment department by making sure that conflicts of interest are properly managed, and that is an absolute disgrace.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (11:15): I second the motion. As we are looking to come out of the global health crisis of the pandemic and the recession that Australia is sadly in at the moment, we have an opportunity to build a better future. We have an opportunity to take stock and say: 'What sort of a country do we want to live in? What sort of a contribution do we want to make to the world?' It is absolutely clear to me, on behalf of the constituents of Dunkley, and it is absolutely clear to those members of parliament on my side of the chamber that one of the priorities for Australians is to have a country with a beautiful environment, with our iconic natural environment that is protected, and to be, as we have been under past federal governments, a leader around the world in the protection of native species, native plants and iconic environmental places. Sadly, it appears that we currently have a federal government who don't want to do that. They don't want to look forward to a great future with good jobs, good economic growth and a protected environment; they want to look back. We've heard in the last few days that the Morrison government wants to snap back to 2014, to the failed policies of Tony Abbott, when it comes to the environment.
The Samuel review of the EPBC Act is one of the most significant opportunities for reform in the past 20 years. When we face a sad history of extinction of our native animals in Australia, when we are looking at the devastation of the Great Barrier Reef, when we have a government that has not only failed to act on climate change but dismantled previous attempts by Labor governments for Australia to be a leader on climate change, it is deeply and devastatingly disappointing that we also have a government that is failing to take the opportunity for review and substantial reform that the Samuel review gives us. Many of us have spoken in this chamber before about our commitment to a greater future, a commitment to an environment that is protected, an economy that grows and jobs that are based on renewable energy and policies that are good for the environment. It's not just a trite saying that, if you don't have an environment, you don't have an economy—it's true. What is also true but seems to be failed to be recognised by those on the other side of the chamber is that protecting our environment can also be a driver of economic growth and a driver of jobs.
We hear a lot, as the review into the EPBC Act has gone on and the minister has rolled out responses, about getting rid of green tape, about how important it is to have infrastructure and development being able to progress without all of this green tape. But, when you peel away the rhetoric of green tape, what you actually find is that, under this federal government, the delays have been caused by blue tape. They've been caused by massive cuts to the department of the environment. They've been caused by policies and attitudes of this government which have slowed down proper assessments of projects from an environmental perspective. They have not been caused by so-called green tape.
The World Wide Fund for Nature has said that we lost three billion animals in the recent bushfires and that 49 threatened species had 80 per cent of their habitat burnt in the bushfires. For many of us around Australia, the pictures of koalas screaming in pain from their burns and Australians risking their own skin and lives to save those koalas are seared into our understanding of why we need to protect our environment. We know that climate change increases the risk and the likelihood of catastrophic events like bushfires. There are many people in the community who perhaps before didn't have such a razor-sharp interest in environmental laws, but they do now because they've seen about the risk that's posed— (Time expired)
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (11:20): The Morrison government is failing Australia and Australians. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit and the economic recession it caused was thrust upon us, the Morrison government was stifling the opportunity for major resources and infrastructure projects around Australia to proceed. This has become such a profound issue that even the WA Minister for Transport called out the government for being the key hold-up for major projects across Perth.
Principally, the issue is this: the Morrison government has cut funding to the department of environment so much that this department, which is responsible for federal environmental assessments for projects under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, is fundamentally failing to do its job. This isn't just leaving our environment unprotected, which it is, but is holding up job-creating projects. If there was ever a time that Australia needed to be in a position to get moving—that we needed shovel-ready projects ready; that we needed to make sure that regulatory requirements were met speedily but properly so that job-creating projects could proceed as soon as possible—it is now. Yet the Morrison government's record in this space is the opposite. As the motion before us outlines, under the Morrison government, approval delays have blown out by 510 per cent—from 16 days to nearly four months on average—essentially caused by sustained cuts to the environment department. These are cuts of nearly 40 per cent since 2013.
In 2018-19, 95 per cent of key decisions on major projects were made late and 79 per cent of decisions were affected by error or were non-compliant. Instead of aiding and abetting Clive Palmer's mad plan to break WA's protective borders, the Prime Minister should be working to secure better laws for jobs, investment and environmental protection. Since the end of last year, the WA government has been calling on the Commonwealth to enter into a bilateral agreement for environmental approvals, which would avoid the delays being caused at the federal level. Of course, such bilateral agreements should be about best practice environmental protection and not finding any lowest common denominator.
In October last year, the Morrison government commissioned a review into environmental laws, appointing Graeme Samuel to head that review. Upon the completion of that inquiry, Mr Samuel said our country needs better environment laws underpinned by national environment standards, together with an enforcement body, as well as supporting bilateral agreements with the states, such as what has been requested by Western Australia. However, it seems this Liberal Party are ignoring the recommendations of their own inquiry. The Liberal government has now introduced an environment bill which is merely a rehash of Tony Abbott's failed 2014 approach.
The Liberal government claims that these proposed amendments will tidy up the existing EPBC Act bilateral provisions. However, its legislation goes somewhat further than that. In addition, despite the recommendation of the Samuel review, the government is trying to put through legislation now that does not include any national environmental standards. Trying to push through incomplete legislation doesn't build support for reform; it is playing silly political games that will not only hurt WA jobs but also reduce investment certainty. This is the most significant opportunity for environmental reform in the last 20 years. The government must get it right. But, so far, all we're seeing is Abbott 2.0.
Environmental protection and supporting major projects are not mutually exclusive. In fact, good environmental laws should secure both. Rather than taking the axe to laws designed to protect our environment and, importantly, laws that preserve Australia as a world-leading tourism destination, the federal government should improve its project assessment funding and performance. It should be working towards the full suite of laws that are required. A piecemeal approach just won't cut it.
Australia has a job crisis and an environmental crisis, and the Morrison government is failing on both counts. This government now needs to take responsibility for its abject failure on environment and jobs and to stop tying up projects and strangling the environment with Liberal Party blue tape, which is delaying jobs and investment, putting a handbrake on our economy, failing to protect iconic Australian species and allowing the state of our natural environment to rapidly decline. We need to make sure both job opportunities and the environment will be bettered by this legislation, not compromised. If there was ever a time that we needed to get these laws right, it is now, when we need to bring forward projects to support our economy.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (11:25): I rise to speak on the motion moved by my colleague the member for Griffith, and I do so acknowledging that I am on the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nations. I would like to congratulate the member for holding this government to account so well. She has summed up their disregard for the protection of our environment perfectly.
But, if I'm being honest, it isn't all that hard for us on this side of the House to list the failures of this Liberal government when it comes to the protection of our environment. The Auditor-General has done that for us. Their report tells the story of a government whose cuts and neglect have caught up to them. It's estimated that they have cut funding to the environment department by 40 per cent. It's no wonder, then, that decisions under the EPBC Act are so chronically delayed or that 79 per cent of the approvals that the Auditor-General assessed were noncompliant or contained errors. This is blatant mismanagement at a time when the Samuel review's interim record is telling us environmental protection has experienced a steady decline over the past 20 years, leaving a trail of destruction. This is a federal government that, under this Prime Minister, takes no responsibility for its actions and its appalling outcomes. We see time and time again that they engage in blame shifting and responsibility dodging. Just look at the tragedy that is aged care.
I am proud to stand here as the member for Cooper. My community know we are facing a climate emergency. They know we are facing extinction crises. They know that the Morrison government is failing when it comes to protecting natural resources, our wildlife, our waterways, our forests and our future. There are those who shrug off calls for environmental protection as cries of the privileged or dismiss the issues as elitist. They tell us that we cannot have action on climate change or action to protect our environment whilst creating jobs and supporting livelihoods. This is rubbish. In my electorate of Cooper I have people from all walks of life, from factory workers, tradies and coffee roasters in Reservoir to retail workers and university protesters in Northcote, all telling me the same thing: we are living in the time of a climate crisis. We want action. We need action. It is not a privileged viewpoint to say that we need a strong regulator with adequate resources to do their job. It's not a privileged viewpoint to say degradation of the environment is worth properly monitoring and halting. It is not a privileged viewpoint to want this Liberal government to do its job, because, in fact, we see by these latest reports that it is doing the opposite of protecting our beautiful natural heritage: it is wilfully destroying it.
Each week I get hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls from constituents right across my electorate, and indeed the country, across industries and across all political parties who can see the realities of climate change and environmental neglect by this Liberal government. They are exhausted by what they're seeing and the effort to make change. But they won't give up and neither will I. We can see the increasing intensity of bushfires and the health impacts of the climate emergency. We're horrified by coral bleaching and the potential for the extinction of koalas in the wild—indeed, the extinction of the natural habitats of many of our native species.
We need a government that is prepared to make Australia a global leader in climate action, a country which preserves and protects its beautiful environmental assets and benefits from the thousands of jobs real action on these issues would create. Only people with their heads in the sand—fast-disappearing sand dunes in some cases—cannot see the abundance of potential in a fast-tracked sustainable future with jobs, jobs, jobs in industries of the future, with our natural environs intact. This is not a pipedream. Other countries are beating us to it. Other countries with the guts and foresight are going to reap the benefits of the global shift to renewables. We will be left behind if this government has its way. For this shift to happen, the Liberal government will need to start listening to the experts and the Australian people, whether they be in inner-city electorates or in regional and rural communities, who are demanding change.
But, sadly, it's becoming clearer and clearer that the government simply aren't up to the task. They're more interested in playing the politics of division than protecting our environment and creating jobs. The Leader of the Opposition and our side have offered to work collaboratively. It's time for the Prime Minister to step up; protect our environment, which is being destroyed; create the jobs of the future; and ensure a decent future for all Australians. It's not too much to ask them to do their job.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (11:31): Edward O Wilson the biologist once talked about the idea of biophilia: the notion that humans have an innate desire to connect with nature and other forms of life. Biophilia is being understood now in terms of the importance of mental health and spending time in the environment. I started today in the Canberra bush doing hill sprints on one of the hills near my house. Part of the joy of that is not just the physical exercise; it's the connection with the country around you—spending time with the kangaroos, the kookaburras and the galahs amidst the eucalyptus. So many Australians see the natural environment as being critical to who we are, and so many international visitors come to Australia to see our natural environment. They want to see Uluru. They want to the Great Barrier Reef. The environment is fundamental to who we are and who we stand for in the world. Yet, under the coalition, we have seen the greatest travesty in their inability to deal with unchecked climate change.
This coalition's approach to climate change has been that of the ostrich with its head in the sand: unable to recognise the looming environmental crisis that is being caused, unable to bring down Australia's emissions in line with what our international obligations demand and unable to recognise that dealing with climate change in a smooth transition is ultimately not only more effective but also the cheaper solution. Unchecked climate change challenges almost every aspect of Australian life. There is no continent worse affected by unchecked climate change than Australia. The impact on bushfires has already been felt. We've seen over a billion animals killed during the recent bushfires and more than 12 million hectares of land burnt. There are devastating impacts of sea level rise on coastal communities, and other significant impacts throughout the nation of unchecked climate change.
But we also have a coalition that is failing to do the right job when it comes to national environmental standards. The Samuel report, engaging with groups across the political spectrum, has recommended new, legally enforceable national environmental standards. It's recommended Australia's Indigenous cultural heritage laws be reviewed and better engagement with Indigenous Australians. As Bruce Pascoe has outlined in his book Dark Emu, Indigenous Australians have a great deal to teach non-Indigenous Australians about effective land management. It calls for better information, restoration of the environment, and the creation of an independent compliance and enforcement regulator—a so-called federal EPA.
The anti-science approach of the coalition can be seen, as the member for Griffith has so ably highlighted in this excellent motion, through the mismanagement of federal environmental decisions. Since 2014-15, we have seen a huge blowout in approval times, from 19 days to 116 days. Shockingly, 95 per cent of Morrison government decisions on major projects were late in 2018-19, and 79 per cent of approval decisions contained errors or didn't comply with the law. In what class would you think that it was alright to hand in your homework late 95 per cent of the time and wrong 79 per cent of the time? This government gets a failing grade when it comes to managing the environment. Another illustration of that is the lack of coalition speakers on this motion—not a single coalition speaker stepping up to defend the government. The member for Kennedy is prattling on from the backbenches, but not even he is going to stand up and defend the government on this.
Labor has a strong environmental legacy, through defending Kakadu and the Franklin River and through creating the world's largest network of marine parks. I've been proud to work with the Labor Environment Action Network—Louise Crawford, Felicity Wade, Rod Holesgrove, Ben Stern, Janaline Oh and others—because they recognise the great benefit to Australia of a Labor Party that is engaged and focused on issues of environmental conservation.
This isn't a choice between the environment and the economy. Indeed, in the case of tourism, the two go together beautifully. We need a government which is willing to do more on environmental approvals. We need a government that will finally take climate change seriously.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (11:36): Labor is completely ignoring the fact that the Morrison government has busted congestion in environmental assessments, with 98 per cent of key decisions made on time last quarter. We are implementing the national cabinet decision, agreed with every state and territory, to reduce duplication and move towards single-touch environmental approvals. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 introduced last week is the first step towards a single-touch model. The streamlining environmental approvals bill and single-touch approvals will reduce regulatory burden, accelerate job-creating projects, promote economic activity and create certainty around environmental protections. By reducing duplication, project proponents could save more than $400 million each year in regulatory costs.
These reforms are more important than ever to support our economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. But, more than that, they will help to address the uncertainty created by our current system of environmental regulation. Everyone agrees our environmental laws are in desperate need of reform, and everyone acknowledges the current approvals system leads to duplication and inefficiency due to unnecessary interactions between Commonwealth, state and territory environmental laws. This bill is the first tranche of EPBC Act reforms linked to Professor Samuel's independent statutory review of the act.
Unlike Labor, which sat on its hands, ignoring the need for legislative change identified in the 71 recommendations of the Hawke review of the act a decade ago, we are acting to implement sensible reform. We have begun the process of entering into bilateral approval agreements with the states and territories, beginning with Western Australia. There will be more reforms in the months ahead. We are committed to change that will deliver the best outcomes for the environment and for everyday Australians. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has agreed to implement all eight ANAO recommendations and has already made changes to improve its administration of the EPBC Act. Instead of helping to deliver much-needed reform that has been agreed by national cabinet, Labor is seeking to distract from the environmental debate raging in its divided party room.
On top of the Morrison government's $25 million investment to bust congestion in environmental approvals, we have announced a priority list of 15 major projects to be fast-tracked for approval, involving joint assessment teams with the states to accelerate Commonwealth assessment and approval times. These projects include road infrastructure in Western Australia; Perth airport upgrades in Western Australia; the M12 Motorway link to the Western Sydney international airport in New South Wales; the Sydney Metro rail link to the Western Sydney international airport; the inland freight line from Melbourne to Brisbane; the Coffs Harbour bypass; the emergency town water projects in New South Wales; the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro expansion; the Narrabri gas project; Woodside's Burrup Hub project in Western Australia; Rio Tinto's iron ore projects in Western Australia; Metronet rail projects in Western Australia; in my home state of South Australia, BHP's Olympic Dam extension; the EnergyConnect high-voltage electricity transmission connection between my home state and New South Wales; and the Marinus Link electricity connection between Tasmania and Victoria. These projects are worth more than $72 billion and are expected to support over 66,000 jobs—important projects aimed at fast-tracking Australia's economic recovery post COVID. By reducing assessment and approval time frames, these major projects will be shovel-ready earlier, helping to create thousands of new jobs and supporting the economy through the COVID-19 crisis.
The Prime Minister has noted that the Commonwealth's ability alone to achieve faster approvals only goes so far and we need to work in partnership with the states. A good example of this is Snowy Hydro 2.0, which underwent a rigorous assessment. By working closely with the New South Wales government a decision was made ahead of statutory timeframes. Partnering with the states and territories is also the approach the Morrison government is taking to much-needed reforms to the EPBC Act. Following the release of the interim review of the EPBC Act by Professor Samuel at the national cabinet meeting of 24 July, all states and territories indicated support for the move to single-touch approvals. We are already talking with the states about entering agreements to progress single-touch approvals, with state and territory processes to be accredited against the standards. We have also introduced a bill to the parliament to amend the EPBC Act to ensure single-touch approvals are efficient and robust.
This bill makes important changes, such as making it clear you don't also need to refer a project to the Commonwealth, if it is going through a state single-touch approval process and providing flexibility so that the state can make minor changes— (Time expired)
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:41): The Great Barrier Reef is under unprecedented threat. Australia has the highest loss of mammal species of any nation in the world. The Tasmanian devil is threatened. Our koala populations are in decline. More and more of our coastline is subject to erosion. The Murray-Darling River system is in crisis and many of the towns, particularly in the southern states, are in decline. Levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere continue to rise. In the local community that I represent, Yarra Bay Beach in Botany Bay is under threat and the marine habitat is under threat from a proposal by the New South Wales government and cruise ship operators. Under the Morrison Liberal government, the polluters are in charge and the environment is in decline. It is our kids who will pay the cost.
In June of this year the government released the independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act conducted by Professor Graeme Samuel. It paints a sorry picture of the state of environmental conservation in Australia. In the opening paragraphs, it says:
Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat.
It goes on to say:
The impact of climate change on the environment is building, and will exacerbate pressures, contributing to further decline.
And:
The EPBC Act is ineffective. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation. It is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges.
This comes on the back of a damning Auditor-General's report into referrals under the EPBC Act, and that's the subject of this motion. Under that Auditor-General's report, we've seen a 510 per cent increase in the average delays for approval decisions since this Liberal and National government was elected. A 79 per cent increase of approvals assessed were noncompliant or contained errors. We've seen conflicts of interest that aren't managed. Reporting arrangements are not consistent with the EPBC Act, and projects or environmental outcomes are not being monitored.
The report reveals the extent to which this government's cuts to the environment department, which are estimated to have been 40 per cent since 2013, have smashed the department's capacity to make good, timely decisions that create jobs and protect our national environment. We are seeing this locally in the community that I represent. Yarra Bay, the last remaining tract of original beach that is left on the northern side of Botany Bay is now under threat from a proposal from the cruise industry and the New South Wales government to build a cruise terminal at Yarra Bay. To do so they would need to dredge the day, risking a seagrass sanctuary that's just beginning to take off again in Botany Bay. The weedy sea dragon and pygmy pipehorse, which are threatened species in that area, would again be at risk from this proposal. There is significant Aboriginal cultural heritage. It's an important traditional fishing site. Yet these issues are considered last by the New South Wales Liberal government and by the Commonwealth Liberal government. Under these governments, the environment comes last. Aboriginal heritage comes last. They're putting the business case first. They're putting the interests of polluters first. As Professor Samuel said, getting the views of First Australians is tokenism and stopping species decline is tokenism.
Thankfully, the Yarra Bay proposal is on hold due to COVID-19. But we anticipate that it will come back under this Liberal government because the polluters are in charge. The government now wants to introduce a new bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill, which ignores some of the recommendations of the Samuel report, particularly in relation to national environmental standards. This bill would devolve environmental assessments and approvals to the states and territories. Devolve Commonwealth responsibilities to the Australian people, particularly our kids, to conserve the environment and put in place a framework that protects our environment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Queensland: International Students
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (11:46): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement in relation to a motion that was withdrawn from the Federation Chamber today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): I will allow the member for Kennedy to make a brief statement on indulgence.
Mr KATTER: Universities should be, and have been, nurseries of ideas and gardens of freedom. The current administrations of many of our universities in Australia have turned them into 'pits of pigs' and their snouts are well and truly in the trough. The most highly respected and most senior academic figure in Australian universities informed me some years ago that the universities have become visa shops. But they have now gone from selling visas to selling their souls. The universities in Australia have existed for 150 years. They did not need overseas students. If you want to get into Australia, just sign up for a hospitality course at the University. You'll be in like Flynn and they'll never get you out. I don't have time to go down that pathway now.
The University of Queensland admit that 20 per cent of their income comes from China. When I say 'China', I don't mean the Chinese people; I mean, of course, the totalitarian communist dictatorship government of China. If the University of Queensland says it's 20 per cent, you can bet it's 30 per cent. Seventy per cent of their income comes by way of the Australian people—and that's locked in, they know they've got that 70 per cent. But, in their greed, they want to go after more money. They don't need the extra money; they need it to line their pockets and to be more influential and powerful; they need it to greedily get another 30 per cent. To do that, they've got to toady to a totalitarian dictatorship—the Chinese Communist government, to be specific.
I don't make claims in this place without backing them up. 60 Minutes reported—13 months after the event, I might add—that Drew Pavlou and his friends, 'the 12 disciples' as I call them, have friends from China and they know the horrible things that are happening there. They can't speak about that, because these people would be punished. So they decided to have a little demonstration. That's all you can do. As Tim Bergen said, to change the world we must take a great problem, a small proportion of it, and hold on to your own pain and punishment.
So they had this little demonstration, and it was a demonstration for freedom. What it ended up being was a clear demonstration that there's no freedom of speech in the universities of Australia. JCU and the infamous Ridd case—that is far from over—indicate there's no freedom of speech in Australia. In the case of Theophanous v Fairfax newspapers the High Court held unanimously that freedom of speech is essential, is implicit in our Constitution and is essential for the proper working of a democracy. So we announced in the second 60 Minutes that we were going to move.
The second issue here is the Queensland police did nothing. They had, on camera, people being brutally bashed and assaulted by people—there is facial recognition; clearly Chinese thugs. I mean Drew Pavlou himself, if you watch, was very lucky he didn't get a skull fracture from whiplash from the force he was pushed off his feet and the brutality of the attack. The Queensland police did nothing, and this inquiry will find out whether the Queensland government was involved in telling the police not to do anything or whether it was a police decision.
Since five days after I announced there was going to be an inquiry, one way or another, there was going to be an inquiry. Five days after the second 60 Minutes, the police suddenly moved. Having experienced the field of politics, I would say they're not going to take the fall. Let the Queensland government and Madam Palaszczuk take the fall. They are not going to take the fall. So they've acted. They've got themselves off the hook.
Now there was action taken—there was no action taken by the Queensland government and the police but there was action taken. It was taken by the university. It was not to protect freedom of speech, not to protect some brave young people who are driven by idealism. It attacked those people. It picked out Drew Pavlou, tossed him out of the university, cut off his career, took him off the senate where he was elected by the student body—the hide of them overruling the body that pays their wages and by law. They kicked him off. The terrible oppression that was meted out on this young man to be singled out and the brutality by a bunch of bullies with their snouts in the trough has be addressed and they have to be punished. They cannot be allowed to get away with this.
In conclusion, I want to name the 12 disciples as I call them: Drew Pavlou. Christopher Stewart, Wilson Gavin, Dylan Lyons, Jack Conkey, Tim Tyrell, Isabel Haqqani, Matt Kurl, Marcus Harrington, Kam, Tenzin Doring, Badiucao and all my brave Uighur, Tibetan and Chinese dissident friends and the countless heroes who make up the Hong Kong International Alliance in Brisbane.
The links with the People's Liberation Army, the PLA; the Chinese consulate in Brisbane; and the Confucius Institute must be exposed. The degree to which the communist government—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Kennedy. The brief indulgence has certainly expired.
Mr KATTER: I have one sentence more, if I could, please, just one sentence. I crave your indulgence. We achieved what we set out to achieve, and the committee should be inquiring into it. I've got to say to the government with their wide-ranging inquiry Winston Churchill's famous phrase: if you're not going to do it, then you have a wide-ranging inquiry, and the wider the less likely it is to target anything. I conclude on that note, and I thank very much the parliament.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (11:55): On behalf of the Assistant Treasurer, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: AIR 555 Phase 1 Airborne Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance Electronic Warfare Capability Facilities Works.
The Department of Defence is proposing a project to provide fit-for-purpose facilities and infrastructure to support the introduction into service of new capabilities at RAAF bases Edinburgh, Darwin and Townsville and the territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The 2016 Defence white paper highlighted both the need for enhanced situational awareness through a strengthened intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and space capability and the need to strengthen electronic warfare and cyber capabilities. The project will deliver key facilities early and enable Defence to commence generating an initial operating capability before these incoming aircraft arrive. The project will support the incoming Peregrine aircraft to become a fully operating capability once all aircraft have been delivered and all associated operating personnel are deployed in their roles. The estimated total capital out-turn cost of the project is $293.7 million.
The project was referred to the PWC on 16 June 2020. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18C of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval the works are expected to commence shortly thereafter and be completed by mid-2024. On behalf of the government I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
COVID-19: Aged Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (11:57): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Australian Government funds and regulates residential aged care;
(b) the Australian Government has not produced a COVID-19 plan for aged care;
(c) more than 400 aged care residents have died from COVID-19; and
(d) the aged care Royal Commission has said that if the Australian Government had acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the suffering of many people could have been avoided; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to:
(a) produce a COVID-19 plan for aged care that delivers:
(i) minimum staffing levels;
(ii) reduced home care waiting lists;
(iii) more transparency;
(iv) public reporting;
(v) adequate PPE;
(vi) staff training;
(vii) a better surge workforce strategy; and
(viii) additional funding for the aged care Royal Commission; and
(b) sack Senator Colbeck from the aged care portfolio.
Leave not granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Australian Government funds and regulates residential aged care;
(b) the Australian Government has not produced a COVID-19 plan for aged care;
(c) more than 400 aged care residents have died from COVID-19; and
(d) the aged care Royal Commission has said that if the Australian Government had acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the suffering of many people could have been avoided; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to:
(a) produce a COVID-19 plan for aged care that delivers:
(i) minimum staffing levels;
(ii) reduced home care waiting lists;
(iii) more transparency;
(iv) public reporting;
(v) adequate PPE;
(vi) staff training;
(vii) a better surge workforce strategy; and
(viii) additional funding for the aged care Royal Commission; and
(b) sack Senator Colbeck from the aged care portfolio.
When Senator Colbeck walked from the Senate chamber, he should have walked to his desk and packed it up and left.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The Leader of the Opposition will take his seat. The minister has the call.
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (12:00): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
The House divided. [12:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:07): Is the motion seconded?
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (12:07): Seconded. This Prime Minister and his hapless minister for aged care need to accept responsibility—
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (12:07): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [12:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr BURKE ( Watson — Manager of Opposition Business ) ( 12:10 ): How many people have to die before you can have a debate on aged care in—
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (12:10): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.
The House divided. [12:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (12:13): The question is that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
The House divided. [12:13]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (12:16): On behalf of the Assistant Treasurer, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out and security hardening of new leased Australian Federal Police premises at West Perth.
The Australian Federal Police proposes a fit-out and security hardening of its new leased premises in West Perth. The AFP Western Command headquarters lease expired in November 2017 and has continued to be occupied through lease extensions. It was deemed that the current location is not suitable to meet current threat mitigation requirements. The fit-out works are necessary to mitigate the risks associated with the AFP's vulnerability assessment, which was based upon improvised explosive device protection, intruder resistance protection and system response capability. The estimated cost of the works is $27.1 million and will be funded through landlord incentive and departmental appropriation. The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 30 April 2020. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval, fit-out works are expected to commence in November 2020 and occupation of the building is scheduled between June and August 2021. On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Report
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (12:18): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report entitled Inquiry into PFAS remediation in and around Defence bases—second progress report.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Ms SWANSON: by leave—I present the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's second report in its ongoing review of Defence's national PFAS Investigation and Management Program. The subcommittee's report is subtitled Second progress report. It reviews the government response to the joint committee's report on management of PFAS contamination in and around Defence bases from the last parliament. The report presented today also evaluates the government's response in the light of more recent evidence. It looks for progress since the JSCFADT made its nine recommendations for change in 2018. Those recommendations called for a better coordinated and resourced national response; for more support to PFAS affected communities, including compensation for financial loss; and for a national commitment to phase out the use of PFAS firefighting foams.
The Department of Defence established its national PFAS program in 2016. RAAF Base Williamtown was one of the first bases identified for PFAS remediation, and it is in my electorate. I know the harm that the use of PFAS foams in firefighting has caused the people living in regional communities like mine. PFAS chemicals are persistent in the environment and cumulative in living organisms, including humans. Australia has issued guidelines for safe exposure levels in water and food, but there is uncertainty about its long-term health effects. That is agreed. People living with high PFAS blood levels have a restricted quality of life. They cannot eat the produce they grow—their eggs or fruit. They cannot water their livestock with groundwater, let alone drink the water themselves. They worry about loss of livelihood, about devaluation of their land and about their future health and that of their children. Work is being done, and some good results are being achieved in clearing PFAS from soils and waters using some very impressive technology. But for many residents evidence of this is either not experienced or is coming too slowly. The government's response indicates that all that can be done is being done. One recommendation for review of health advice was agreed. The response otherwise considered that current arrangements adequately address or can address most of the issues raised by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
PFAS is a complex problem, and some progress has been made. Australia recently upgraded the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan to assist jurisdictions to manage PFAS consistently. National standards are being finalised that will eventually underpin Australia's ratification of the Stockholm convention to phase out PFAS chemicals used in firefighting foams. Meanwhile, people are still living with the legacy impacts of PFAS daily—the mental stress that breaks up families and communities, often without support. And, while some states in Australia have banned the use of fluorine based foams, some defence bases continue to use them, exposing local communities and firefighters to ongoing contamination.
The report tabled today makes 10 recommendations to reform both high-level and in-practice processes under the national PFAS program. The subcommittee believes the government and its agencies should be more accountable to the public and those people whose communities are impacted by PFAS. This means engaging people in the remediation process that impacts their lives, delivering factual and up-to-date information on that process and providing a national contact point for advice. It means delivering mental health supports to all affected and funding better research to understand those impacts, and it requires driving through legislation and international agreements that will phase out PFAS firefighting foams permanently.
Many of these recommendations build on observations made in the subcommittee's first report, tabled in December of last year. The PFAS subcommittee will continue to monitor progress. This includes the outcomes of new research being funded to destroy PFAS contaminants and even to reduce PFAS in blood.
I wish to thank all participants in the inquiry so far for their valuable evidence. I also wish to thank the committee secretary, Lynley Ducker, and Loes Slattery and Mrs Dorota Cooley. Thanks to everyone who continues to address this important matter. I commend the committee's report to the House.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to ensure that all Australians can enjoy a dignified retirement, including by committing to:
(1) the scheduled and legislated increases to the superannuation guarantee; and
(2) adequate funding for the age pension."
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (12:24): I would like to thank those members who have contributed to the second reading debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020. This bill will extend access to the bring-forward arrangements to people aged 65 and 66 years. From 1 July 2020, people in this age group will be able to make up to three years worth of non-concessional contributions into their superannuation in a single year. This is an important change, which delivers on the government's commitment in the 2019-20 budget and 2019 election. The bring-forward measure, together with the government's changes to the work test and spouse contributions rules, improves the flexibility of the superannuation system to assist older Australians to save for their retirement. I commend this bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The House divided. [12:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (12:34): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (12:35): I rise to speak to the Aboriginal Land Lights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020. I am also circulating an amendment in my name, which I shall address as I speak. I start by paying my respects and offering the greetings of the parliament to the Mirarr Aboriginal people, who are the traditional owners of the Jabiru township, which is the subject of this bill. Labor will be supporting this bill, which has been a long time coming for the Mirarr people—and I once again pay my respects to the Mirarr people and say thank you for your attention, thank you for your patience. This is such an important issue for your community, and I absolutely recognise that.
The town of Jabiru was established in the early 1980s, without the consent of the Mirarr people, to service the Ranger uranium mine in the Northern Territory. The town and the mine are surrounded by Kakadu National Park, Aboriginal land which is leased to the Commonwealth Director of National Parks. The Mirarr never wanted the Ranger mine or the Jabiru township that goes with it. The good news for them is that the mine will soon be closed and the site will be rehabilitated. As for the township of Jabiru, that in itself is substantial infrastructure that now serves as an administrative centre for West Arnhem Land. It is home to hundreds of people and is a special recreation and accommodation hub for the tourism industry, especially visitors to the Kakadu National Park.
The effect of this bill will be to return the ownership of Jabiru to the Mirarr people and to allow for a community entity, representing the minister, to hold a head lease over the town. It is important that the House is reminded that it was a Labor government, back in October 2009, which set this course of Mirarr self-determination, with an in-principle agreement for the amendments to the land rights act. Labor, in January last year, committed to a major upgrade of the Kakadu National Park visitor facilities. Undoubtedly it was the knowledge of that commitment that spurred the Prime Minister to commit similar funding. Labor is glad that a new Mirarr community entity, rather than the Commonwealth Executive Director of Township Leasing, will be holding the head lease over Jabiru township, because this reflects the preference of the Northern Territory land councils and traditional owners. Jabiru falls within the realm of the Northern Land Council, and I am pleased to record the NLC's support for this bill. I pay my respects to the NLC. I personally know very well the reasonably new CEO, Marion Scrymgour.
Jabiru falls within the realm of the Northern Land Council, as I have just said. After the bill was introduced back in May last year, the NLC noted that it would allow for the transition of the township from a mining town to a regional service centre, as well as a tourism hub that will drive economic activity throughout the West Arnhem region.
For many years the Mirarr people have been planning and looking forward to the shutdown of the Ranger mine, as we said, in 2021. They have developed a comprehensive master plan that will transform the Jabiru economy from one that has been focused on mining and support services to one based on the social, cultural and natural resources wealth of the region, and some of those advising the Mirarr have walked me through what that plan is.
The Mirarr people have withstood immense pressure from political and mining industry influences for many decades now, and their culture has remained strong and vibrant. Now, finally, they have the opportunity to chart their own destiny, to manage their own affairs and to prosper from their own endeavours—self-determination in real terms. The Mirarr community entity owned township lease will provide a local decision-making entity. It will allow the management of the lease to be put directly into the hands of the traditional owners, who will be able to make decisions that uphold their cultural connection to land.
I know the Mirarr people have been looking forward with much anticipation to the passage of this legislation, and we absolutely wish the Mirarr people well in their future business. There is much hard work ahead of them to realise the potential that will be delivered by the passage of this bill. It is the hope of the traditional owners that this transition will foster long-term economic development not only for the township but for the greater West Arnhem region, and Labor joins the Mirarr and the traditional owners in that hope. Labor has always been committed to greater self-determination for First Nations Australians.
I move the amendment circulated in my name:
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) recognises the importance of Aboriginal land rights for the self-determination First Nations people;
(2) agrees that, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the bill, the right to self-determination entails the entitlement of peoples to have control over their destiny and to be treated respectfully;
(3) notes that the recently introduced restrictions on the use of the Aboriginal flag are unacceptable, heartbreaking and disrespectful to First Nations people; and
(4) calls on the Government to act on matters of importance to First Nations people, including:
(a) do everything in its power to free the flag so that it can be used by all Australians, while also respecting and protecting the rights of Harold Thomas; and
(b) adequately invest in housing and essential services—including access to clean water—for First Nations people living on Native Title land".
I have moved this amendment today in part so that Labor can speak about a matter which has caught the attention of and shocked many people in the community. Before I move on to that topic, I once again give my warmest congratulations and my warmest and best wishes to the Mirarr for their endeavours to do with the transfer of town ownership.
The matter I want to speak of that has caught national attention is the ownership of the Aboriginal flag and the use of its copyright by a private company for profit, not pride. The Aboriginal flag was first flown in Adelaide on National Aborigines Day in 1971—a very long time ago—at Victoria Square, also known in the Kaurna language as Tarntanyangga. In 1972 the flag became the national flag of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy in Canberra after it was flown there. I know that Harold Thomas and Gary Foley took that flag to the tent embassy. The upper, black half of the flag represents the Aboriginal people of Australia. The lower, red half represents the red ochre—earth. The yellow circle at the centre represents land and sun, the giver of life and protector.
The Federal Court has recognised Harold Thomas as the author of that flag, and that is an important point in this discussion. Harold is a deeply respected Luritja man from Central Australia. He was the first Aboriginal person to graduate from an Australian art school, and he holds an honorary degree at the University of Adelaide. We understand that Harold has absolutely every right, as the copyright holder, to do as he wishes in terms of the flag. But we also say very much that, while we recognise Harold's copyright, Australia is made up of many Aboriginal nations—hundreds, as well as the Torres Strait—and the Aboriginal flag is one symbol that unites those Aboriginal nations. It is such a universal and important symbol that I actually have it tattooed on my left arm. I'm not going to show you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I promise you it's there. Aboriginal people across this country display the flag with pride, as do many non-Aboriginal people who share this land and acknowledge and celebrate the oldest living culture in the world.
It is for all of these reasons that so many people have been shocked and appalled by the restrictions which have recently come into force about the use of the flag. WAM Clothing and its associated entities assert that they hold the right to use of the flag on clothing and in digital form. It is a matter of public record that Aboriginal organisations—including health and community organisations, which I'm sure the member for Lingiari will address—have been sent cease and desist orders and letters demanding that they stop putting the flag on clothes and uniforms unless they pay WAM to do so and have been told they can't use the flag online or on social media.
This came to a head on the weekend, when the AFL could not use the Aboriginal flag for the Dreamtime round which was played in Darwin. There was no flag on the guernseys and no flag on the ground, but there were thousands of flags in the crowd as people, in an act of defiance, reclaimed this important symbol, a symbol which is protected under the Flags Act of this country. The takeover of the flag by private interests has appalled so many people, particularly because WAM Clothing has publicised links to another corporate entity, Birubi Art, a company which was last year fined $2.3 million after being prosecuted by the ACCC for selling fake Indigenous art made overseas.
I have spoken to very many people who have one simple question: How could this happen? How could the Aboriginal flag be held hostage? How could a company engaged in exploitation of the flag for profit be able to stop local Aboriginal organisations using it as they long have? This is an issue of morality in my mind, and the question is: how is this right? WAM Clothing should do the right thing and give the flag back, because just because something might be legal doesn't always mean that it's morally right. The government should work with all parties to free the flag. Surely it is not beyond our collective will to fix this.
I will finish off by saying once again that our warmest wishes go to the Mirarr people of that extraordinary part of Australia and the town of Jabiru, which I'm sure many people in this chamber know well. I've certainly been there with many others. It will be well cared for, well loved and well looked after by the Mirarr. In saying that, I would reiterate the very real points I've made in relation to the amendments that I have moved—amendments that are very important in terms of recognising self-determination and land rights, and amendments that really do back-in the destiny of the Mirarr—and also note with concern where things are at in relation to that one unifying symbol of very diverse peoples. Many people don't understand, from an Aboriginal cultural perspective, how diverse our nations are. The assistant minister would know of the Biripi people of the Central Coast. There are some very famous Biripi people, actually. We all have those stories in our collective understanding of the areas that we represent.
That diversity is important to understand. But the one that unifies everyone, no matter what the diversity contains and no matter what the stories contain, is the image of the flag. People might argue that I'm playing identity politics and this is not something that should occupy the time of the House. Let me assure you that it is not that sort of politics; it is really important, and not just to First Peoples. The Aboriginal flag is recognised as a formal flag of this country. It is part of the Flags Act 1953 and, therefore, it is a flag of this nation. I would guarantee that not many of us have been to a school, a public building or a parliament in this nation that does not recognise that flag. We all recognise it with pride and a collective sense of what it represents. So I move the amendment in my name and, once again, send my warmest regards to the Mirarr.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Butler: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (12:52): I rise to support the original motion but not the amendment. I congratulate the Mirarr people on the decisions and the pressure they have put to bring about this outcome for their people. They are going to convert Jabiru from a mining town into a tourism town. I've often thought that tourism in the remote areas of Australia offers the most possibilities for economic outcomes to the advantage of the people who own those areas and live there.
The Ranger mine is closing in June 2021. This has been on the cards for a few years now. It is good that, as that date approaches, we are seeing movement. Jabiru is a mining township, and the federal government has committed $216 million to repurpose and revamp the town so it is fit for purpose, fit for investment and fit to operate a tourism industry. To achieve investment in any remote community, what we need is investment certainty. One of the problems that we've had with Indigenous owned land over a long period of time is the community ownership model.
There have been moves, in the Northern Territory, to set up 49- to 99-year lease proposals, which allow for people to invest with some kind of certainty. As far I'm aware, we haven't managed to get that over the border in South Australia yet, and I will come to that a bit later. I think it is something that needs to happen. No-one less than Noel Pearson talks about the value of people being able to individually own their own land or to have certainty around their continuity of occupation, if you like, and I concur with those thoughts. These are interesting and sometimes vexing questions—how a community can go from community ownership to individual rights within that community—but I think they are a very important economic step which need to be recognised.
Jabiru is being transferred to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust, which, as I say, will enable somewhere between a 44- and a 99-year lease on the township. The ownership of the land will lie with the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust. The management of that can lie with the Aboriginal corporation, or they can lease out the management as well. Either way, at the end of the day, they still own the land and will still call the shots. So that is a very good outcome. What we hope the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020 will do and what the Mirarr people absolutely hope is that it will maximise employment, economic activity and underwriting of social services of communities and maximise the benefits of the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust asset.
It is so important that, in relation to the remote areas of Australia that are owned by Aboriginal corporations, we find an economic future for them. In my patch of the world, we have, amongst other things, the Aboriginal lands of the APY—the APY Lands trust—but we also have other Aboriginal lands that sit within South Australia. APY, for instance, covers over 10 per cent of South Australia. There's a population there getting up towards 4,000 people. Traditionally, much of that country was cattle country operated by white companies, if you like, and the Tonkin government actually bought out those rights in the eighties and passed full ownership to the APY Lands council.
Those traditional industries, at their peak, probably employed 200 or 300 people across that area of land. If those same old, original cattle stations were operated at peak efficiency now, they would probably employ 20—such is the case in agriculture right across Australia. We employ far, far fewer people than we used to do. So there is an opportunity there for the local populations to participate in economic activity, but it's pretty limited. The most successful private enterprises or industries on the APY Lands at the moment are probably the arts centres, where Aboriginal art has become very popular. They're turning out a fair bit of it, and it's highly prized. In fact, this government has invested money in an art gallery in Sydney, which I had the great privilege of opening about three years ago, and another one now in Adelaide, which is also an art centre where they can develop their skills. This is particularly for people that might be in Adelaide for medical purposes, for instance. Either way, this is one of the economic lifelines, if you like. But it's nowhere near enough.
What I really like about the Mirarr proposal for Jabiru and Kakadu is that it is focusing on an industry of the future. It's why I have always been a supporter of the Yulara concept, for instance. I think the idea of actually bringing people together in a concentrated workplace where you can manage their training is one of the transitions to the wider world. We should be able to produce people that can work in the tourism industry in remote occupations that may wish to go and run a hotel in London eventually—that's what one would hope.
I think tourism offers the great prospect, but of course our APY Lands—and I said it covers 10 per cent of South Australia: 103,000 square kilometres—are about 500 kilometres across and 200 kilometres from north to south. There are some magnificent environmental assets in the APY Lands. There are three fantastic mountain ranges: the Tomkinson, Mann and Musgrave. The Musgraves feature the highest mountain in South Australia, Mount Woodroffe, which is a little under 5,000 feet in the old money.
It is stunning country, I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is country that very few Australians see because it is closed country. It's a decision of the APY Lands trust that you need a permit—we need a permit—to go into that area of South Australia. It's a little hard to set up a tourist industry if you don't actually allow tourists to come in. This is a big leap for the APY Lands that in many ways have not achieved the levels of education that we would like to see in remote populations, despite pretty strong efforts from both sides of politics and state and federal governments. We still are not hitting those milestones that we need to in these remote communities.
But one thing I am absolutely sure of is that if you want to destroy a culture the best way to do it is to destroy people's purpose. The people that lived there traditionally had a purpose. They had to hunt, gather and feed their family, and protect them and keep them out of the elements. Largely as a society, we have taken over that role in remote communities. We've put in shops. I make the point: one of the biggest sellers in the shops is frozen roo tails. That tells you something. It's a sharp underlying factor of what has changed in those areas. Hunting and gathering is out the window. We supply an income to people that enables them to live—some would say live okay. We provide housing, we provide health care and we provide education and schools, and a lot of that infrastructure is first-class, I have to tell you. There are still some things, I think, that could be better—there could be some more housing—but most of it is first-class.
At the end of the day, despite any effort in education, if there is no natural economy there's nothing to do. You can't get a job in an industry that doesn't exist, and so we really need to focus on what it is we can do in situ that looks like we could make a success out of it. The mining industry is often thrown up as being a possibility—and of course it's interesting that in this bill we're actually talking about the closing down of the mining entity at Jabiru, but that mining operation has ceased anyhow. But the mining industry does offer opportunities. However, I make the point when it comes to the APY Lands: gee, it's got to be a good resource; it's got to be an excellent resource, because it's more than 1,000 kilometres in any direction to the transport routes, to the sea. Anything you do in the outback of South Australia has to be so much better than somewhere else.
You're talking about populations that are going to be expensive to maintain onsite. You're talking largely about a FIFO population, supplying electricity where no grid exists, supplying road networks where the network is poor at best even though we are spending a significant amount of money on doing up the main road into the APY Lands. But, essentially, you have to focus on what it is you can do. I think tourism is one of those things. I think maybe we are a few years away, but that's what this bill is telling me. There's a shining light there: the communities have actually recognised that this is their pathway to a better future.
The point I'm making, in using this bill to speak about my patch—which is what members in this place often do, and we should—is for my people to lift their eyes up to the opportunities of the moment. We have people that have gone through the trade centre on the APY Lands up to Yulara for trading. Sadly, in my opinion, too many of them come back. Whether it's the draw of home, the draw of the land, or whether it's just too big a leap, I'm not too sure. It's one of those things that is a little frustrating, because I think, given the opportunity, we really need to see people take those steps up the ladder. But the steps up the ladder would be nowhere near as great if we actually had an operating industry on the ground, in situ.
To make the point: for anyone who has ever driven to Uluru, or Ayers Rock, coming up from South Australia, the main road in—with deference to those traditional owners and pastoralists who live along the route—is as dull as, um, something to do with dogs, I've got to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker! It isn't an inspirational drive. But I can tell you what: if you turn off at Indulkana and drive out to the lands, past the Tomkinson and Musgrave ranges, and take the route over the border and up to the rock from there, you are in for an exceptional drive. It's some of the most beautiful country in Australia. So we have this incredible natural asset that, to this point in time, we have not been utilising.
As I said, it's a fairly big leap, but, unless we have our eye on an objective, we're never likely to get there. We've actually got to be planning for this as being the future, because, as I said, if we don't find an economy for the 4,000 people who live up there, in another 50 years they won't remember what their culture is. We've actually got to find a useful means. Everybody in this world needs to feel useful at what they do on a day-to-day basis. Our religions alone are not enough to sustain us. We actually need to be actively involved in feeding, clothing—making our mark in the world. That is no different for white culture or for Aboriginal culture or any other culture that you'd like to cast your mind to around the world.
In this case, I say to those people who live in those parts of my electorate, and to others who live in remote communities: have a look at the tourism industry. Think about it. It's interesting that, in this time frame, just recently, down further south, on the Maralinga lands, a tourism operation has begun, taking people out to the sites where the atomic bombs were set off when the British were there testing bombs. Who'd have thunk it, quite frankly—that we'd be taking people out to this site that has caused so much distress for the nation and particularly for the local Indigenous owners over a long time? But they are now seeing the opportunities and making the most of them, and I think that's a very encouraging sign.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): I thank the member for Grey for that thoughtful contribution. The question is in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand as part of the question.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (13:07): Labor is very happy to support this bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020, because it will facilitate the grant of a section 19A township lease and the complete transfer of ownership of the Jabiru township land to the traditional owners, the Mirarr people. In doing so, the bill does something concrete to recognise the rights of one of our First Nations peoples to determine their own future. The bill is, therefore, as welcome from this government as it is unusual because, very clearly, this bill is a welcome anomaly from what has been going on for First Nations people over seven long and dispiriting years of Liberal Party rule.
But, before I turn to that deplorable legacy of inaction, I should acknowledge that the groundwork for this bill was laid seven years ago, in the last year of federal Labor government. That Labor government introduced and passed the Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2013, to give effect to the settlement of the Jabiru native title claim. Introducing that legislation in 2013, the then Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Jenny Macklin, said:
The bill continues the government's commitment to ensuring Aboriginal people's ongoing connection to their land is recognised by scheduling further parcels of land as Aboriginal land. It will benefit traditional owners, residents and business operators in Jabiru and the wider Kakadu region in the Northern Territory. Importantly, it will also provide traditional owners with significant economic development opportunities.
… … …
Importantly, this bill recognises the traditional ownership of Jabiru by the Mirarr people.
My friend and colleague the member for Lingiari also spoke in support of that bill, in 2013, saying this:
By adding this land to schedule 1 of the Land Rights Act, it allows for the land granted as Aboriginal land to be handed back to the traditional owners, the Mirarr people. There has never been any question that the Mirarr people were the traditional owners and are the traditional owners of Jabiru. Their connection to this country goes back many, many thousands of years. In fact Australia's oldest human occupation site, you might be interested to know, known as Malakunanja II, is the traditional lands of the Mirarr, as is of course the Ranger uranium mine and the site of the proposed Jabiluka uranium mine.
Now, with this current bill, the transfer of ownership of the Jabiru township to the Mirarr people may finally take place.
This bill puts right the decision made by the Fraser government to act on the 1977 recommendation of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry—the Fox inquiry—which was in the following terms, and I quote from the second report of the inquiry:
That the land which constitutes the town, if one is built in the Region, not Land Claim become Aboriginal land but become part of the national park.
The Fox inquiry recognised the Mirarr people as the traditional owners of the land but withheld from them the formal title of Aboriginal land. This bill would facilitate the granting of that title. Labor welcomes this.
If the House can forgive me at a moment of reminiscence, I can say that I have a particular personal connection with the subject of this bill. In 1979 and 1980, I worked as a Northern Land Council field officer with the Mirarr people and other First Nations people of this region in setting up the Kakadu National Park in this beautiful part of our country. All of Kakadu National Park was Aboriginal land, except for the area on which the town of Jabiru was to be built. It is satisfying, it will be satisfying, to see this last piece returned to the traditional owners.
Now to the present. It was the most recent former Liberal Prime Minister, the one deposed by the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, who declared in June 2018 that 'Governments have got to stop doing things to Aboriginal people and start doing things with them.' While this bill is a happy example of doing something with First Nations people, it is an approach of which we have seen very, very little from this government. By way of example, I will begin with the issue of native title, because the right to lands, the link between traditional ownership and self-determination, is fundamental. Essentially, when it comes to the issue of native title, the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments have been asleep at the wheel. They did not stir when, in June 2015, the Australian Law Reform Commission delivered its review of the Native Title Act 1993 called Connection to country. That report marked the first major review of the critically important issue of connection in native title determinations, since the introduction of the Native Title Act. That report considered a number of related matters and made 30 recommendations for reform. It is now more than five years since that report was received by the government, and the government has still not even bothered to formally respond.
But this government certainly woke up when the full Federal Court of Australia delivered its decision in the case of McGlade v Native Title Registrar. Suddenly, it wasn't the interests of First Nations people at stake but rather those of commercial third parties, whose agreements to exploit lands, pursuant to agreements with traditional owners, were suddenly thrown into question. This government responded to the McGlade decision with astonishing speed and focus, expediting amendments to the Native Title Act in order to protect those third-party interests in a flurry of activity, including a belated, begrudging and largely perfunctory consultation with Indigenous Australians when Labor demanded the government talk to someone other than resource companies about changes to native title law.
The relationship between First Nations people and the Australian justice system is another area of great difficulty in which this government has consistently failed to act. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service have long provided a vital service to First Nations people who encounter the justice system. They have operated with a degree of autonomy in carrying out their vital role. But this year ATSILS were, against the strident objections of their leadership and the communities they serve, folded into a newly established national mechanism by the Attorney-General. This decision directly contradicted not only the clearly expressed views of the Indigenous community but also the very first recommendation of the Review of the Indigenous Legal Assistance Programreport that was commissioned and received by the government last year. That first recommendation stated:
To facilitate a sustainable, community-controlled Indigenous legal assistance sector, Commonwealth Government funding should continue to be delivered through a standalone, specificpurpose funding programwith minimum five-year funding terms.
Indigenous groups have expressed opposition to and deep concern about this decision by the government. In an open letter, some 100 organisations state that the Morrison government's decision to ignore the key recommendation of the ILAP review is:
… disappointing, not least because the Federal Government has been committed to and responsible for the funding and administration of ATSILS since their inception almost 50 years ago. This began after the 1967 Referendum in recognition of the Commonwealth's special responsibility for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is important to retain this Commonwealth leadership.
… … …
All evidence and research show that working in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and ACCOs is the best way forward. The Federal Government should honour its long-standing commitment, keep ILAP and adequately fund ATSILS to close the justice gap.
We call on the next government to urgently overturn this decision to abandon ILAP and instead retain a standalone Commonwealth program that supports the ATSILS and the communities they serve.
I could say a great deal more about the government's failure to engage constructively on issues of Indigenous justice, but I will move on to what is perhaps the greatest betrayal of First Nations people by the current government—that is, the betrayal of the Uluru Statement from the Heart. Unlike this government, Labor is committed to honouring the Uluru Statement from the Heart and to working towards a genuine reconciliation with First Nations people. That includes working with First Nations people to establish an Indigenous voice to the parliament. In contrast, this government has used its preferred methods of governing—fear and lies—to undermine the very idea of the voice. It was appalling to see a fear campaign about a so-called third chamber of parliament based on deliberately concocted falsehoods and spread by the Liberal and National parties for the purpose of killing the voice before it could ever be heard. I say again: this bill represents a welcome departure from the general record of this government, and I am happy to congratulate those who have worked on bringing this bill into this place. I hope that it is the first of many actions by this government to actually move our nation closer to reconciliation and to improve the lives of First Nations people.
I will conclude by briefly discussing another issue of importance to First Nations people and, indeed, to all Australians—that is, the need to defend the Aboriginal flag from the current constraints on its use. This is yet another matter which the federal government should have resolved long ago, because it is clearly within their power to do so. An Aboriginal owned and led social enterprise and fashion label, called Clothing the Gap, have been running a Free the Flag campaign since being sent legal threats for using the Aboriginal flag on their clothing by the current copyright licensee. Clearly, this is an entirely unacceptable situation. As my friend and colleague the member for Barton, just last week, said:
It's heartbreaking to see a private company holding this symbol of incredible strength for its private profit.
The Aboriginal flag is a national symbol, but it's not being treated like one.
This matter can and must be resolved, and resolved in a manner that respects the copyright interests of the designer of the flag, Mr Harold Thomas. With that, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (13:20): Firstly, let me acknowledge the contributions by the member for Barton, the member for Grey and the member for Isaacs and commend them for their contributions. I'll say to the member for Grey that I know well the country he talks about, having worked out of the Petermann Ranges for a number of years, starting in 1978. It was an interesting time. But I can attest to the beauty of that country and the desire of the Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara people to be self-determining and to make their own decisions. I therefore suggest to the honourable member that he should raise his concerns about the economy of the Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara country with the elders and the community leaders and have a discussion with them about what he thinks.
I thank the member for Barton, and I will come to the issues around the flag a little later. I do want to make an observation about the contribution from the member for Isaacs. Like him, I have a history with this part of the Northern Territory. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, I was first elected to this place in 1987. I had cause this morning, I don't know why, to look at my first speech. In it I talked about the sorts of issues being addressed by the member for Barton and the member for Isaacs—that is, the need to recognise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights, the rights of our First Nations people. In that speech, I raised the issue of constitutional recognition, to which the member for Isaacs has referred.
There is no question that this government needs to raise the bar, and to do the things that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people around this country want them to do to address the Statement from the Heart. It's not much of a stretch to see where the First Nations Voice should be, and there must be a voice. There needs to be constitutional recognition, there needs to be truth-telling and there needs to be a treaty. That is a position at the heart of Labor Party policy.
I go to the issue of the Jabiru area and the Mirarr people. The member for Isaacs referred to the Fox inquiry. Mr Deputy Speaker, it may surprise you to learn that in 1976 I visited what was a trial pit for the then Ranger Uranium Mine—which subsequently came to be the Ranger Uranium Mine—and made submissions, not to the inquiry but in public advocacy, around the need to protect that part of the world from uranium mining. I was opposed to uranium mining then and I am opposed to the nuclear industry now. The Aboriginal people came to an agreement with the Commonwealth around uranium mining in the area which we know as Kakadu, and the adjacent land, and, as the member for Isaacs referred to, the Fox inquiry made certain recommendations, most of which were adopted by the then government. Part of that was that, in the 1980s, a town was required to service the new Ranger Uranium Mine. That town is in Kakadu National Park on land leased from the Director of National Parks to the Jabiru Town Development Authority. The impact of the legislation we're talking about today will see in 2021, when that lease expires, land being leased to an Aboriginal entity run by the Mirarr for their purposes, to develop the township and the economic and social benefits that can be derived from it for the whole of western Arnhem Land, but principally in the first instance for the traditional owners.
It's worth noting that in 2007 the Australian government amended the land rights act by introducing section 19A to provide for the leasing of townships on Aboriginal land to the Commonwealth statutory officer the Executive Director of Township Leasing for a period of 99 years. This scheme was funded by the Aboriginal Benefits Account, which is a statutory fund set up under the land rights act from mining royalty equivalents. This money, some of which was derived out of the Ranger royalty equivalents, was then diverted through this arrangement by the Commonwealth to the Executive Director of Township Leasing for his purposes. In October 2009 the government, under the then leadership of Kevin Rudd, amended the land rights act for the scheduling of Aboriginal land so that a grant could be made to an Aboriginal land trust in Jabiru, conditional on its leasing the land back to the Commonwealth or the Northern Territory government in the form of a township lease. From that time until 2016 the Northern Land Council, on behalf of the Mirarr traditional owners, sought unsuccessfully to negotiate and execute a lease with the then NT government. In 2015 the then Country Liberal Party government formally withdrew its support for that proposed option. In 2016 the NLC recommended negotiation with the Australian government for the Commonwealth option, utilising a section 19A lease. The NT government resumed talks after the election of the Gunner government in August 2016.
As the member for Isaacs said, in 2013 the land rights act was amended to provide for, among other things, shorter term leases than 99 years and for township leases to be held by an approved community entity instead of only by the Executive Director of Township Leases. These changes represented a new policy approach by the Commonwealth but did not apply to the Jabiru provisions as the NT option was still being pursued at the time.
Then, in collaboration with all stakeholders, the Mirarr traditional owners developed the Jabiru Masterplan 2018-2028, which set out a vision for the future of the town after the imminent cessation of its current mining lease function. Towards the end of 2018 the Australian government, the Northern Territory government, Energy Resources of Australia and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation negotiated a memorandum of understanding on the future of the Jabiru township, which states all parties commitment to the vision and master plan of the Mirarr traditional owners of Jabiru and to establishing Jabiru as Aboriginal land. That's what this bill will do.
This bill will fulfil the vision of the Mirarr traditional owners to have that land as Aboriginal land, to set up an entity which is controlled by them to which the land can be leased for the purposes of the township. This will provide ongoing surety to all sorts of economic and business interests around Jabiru and make it a central point in western Arnhem Land for services, but, obviously, primarily for its tourism and relationship to Kakadu National Park.
It's important to understand that relationship and to understand that it's a mutually beneficial relationship that will mean in the longer term the whole of the Australian community will be deriving an important benefit from this bill. Mr Deputy Speaker Gillespie, I understand that I'm about to be shut up, and that I can continue at some subsequent time.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Yes. 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
Whatman, Ms Elayne
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (13:29): Our community says goodbye to beloved local activist Elayne Whatman, who recently passed away from coronavirus. Elayne was no stranger to my office, always raising issues that were of concern to our local community, and she was a force to be reckoned with. A woman of many achievements, Elayne was driven by a passion to record the history of Broadmeadows, including the stories of our local war veterans. Elayne lovingly collected and maintained memorabilia, including early maps with recordings of early landholders, as well as cemetery listings in Will Will Rook, Scotts Church, Donnybrook, Mickleham and Keilor. Elayne's passion, advocacy and commitment in acquiring and preserving such historical sources helped establish the Broadmeadows Historical Society. Of the many projects Elayne was involved in, I recall most 'Remembering Our Heroes' in 2015, when she sourced 60 white crosses from Canberra to be distributed to our local students. Elayne ensured that children from local schools wrote onto the crosses the names and details of soldiers listed on cenotaphs across the electorate. This was intended to create a personal connection to the commemorative events. Once the crosses were completed, they were sent on to Australian war cemeteries overseas. Elayne also served as the Broadmeadows Remembrance Memorial Association secretary and promoted the preservation of the Maygar Barracks. She organised many Anzac Day and Remembrance Day ceremonies. Thank you, Elayne Whatman. You will be forever missed in our local electorate. You were truly a local hero.
Sunshine Coast Airport
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (13:31): Today I say thank you to Flight Path Forum, which prepared an excellent research paper and research material into the proposed flight paths of the Sunshine Coast Airport. They identified numerous flaws in the assessment and consultation process by nearly every agency involved. I took these concerns to the government and Airservices Australia repeatedly, and I received repeated assurances that the agencies had done their jobs appropriately. I raised these concerns in parliament and sought to have documents tabled—submissions from hundreds of constituents detailing the problems. Now we finally have the Aircraft Noise Ombudsman's report, which provides a detailed critique of the flaws in the process and has made strong recommendations vindicating Flight Path Forum's work. The ANO's report goes to show that you don't take a backward step, even when the government is telling you that everything's fine. It clearly was not. Airservices Australia now has the opportunity to show it has learned its lessons and genuinely engage with Flight Path Forum. I thank Flight Path Forum, the community and the ANO for their work and look forward to the ASA honouring its implementation of the ANO's recommendations.
Australia Post
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:32): I'm speaking from Sunnybank on behalf of constituents, like Gary from Sunnybank Hills, who have been let down by Australia Post. Unfortunately, the coronavirus pandemic has contributed to the number of people feeling socially isolated in the Moreton community. Social and community groups have been prevented from meeting face to face, and for some people this was their only source of human interaction. Even in a digital world, some Australians still rely mainly on the postal service to stay connected and remain informed, and, if there was ever a year to remain connected and informed, it is 2020. So the decision by the communications minister and the CEO of Australia Post to cut postal services is baffling and irresponsible. Australia Post has reported a half-billion-dollar surge in annual revenues, and senior Australia Post executives have been rewarded with bonuses, yet still they cut services. Locally, Australia Post has cut its letter delivery service to every second business day, and some are saying it is even worse. Strangely, express post and parcels are still delivered every day, but letters are only delivered every second day and, Gary has said, maybe not even in a week at all. My constituents are very unhappy with this reduced service. The postal service is essential, and the communications minister should do his job and make sure he looks after all Australians who rely on this essential service.
JobKeeper Payment
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:34): The Prime Minister and I recently received a letter from Peter, Jo and Faylene Maguire, directors and partners of Helloworld Travel Emerald, wanting to express their sincere appreciation and thanks to the coalition government for the economic support that their business has received during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Maguire family operate a small travel business in Emerald, established over 43 years ago. The Maguires have been through a lot and have survived it all: economic downturns; the airline collapses—Ansett, Compass, Flight West; 9/11 in New York; droughts and floods. Jo Maguire writes:
During these 43 years, this year is the first time any offer of assistance has been received to our business. This time, COVID-19, we would have been out of the door without the federal government's assistance and support. We would have closed our doors and walked away, and we would have left behind many valued clients who had booked thousands of dollars of holidays through us in the lurch. We now are here for the long haul due to the government's economic support and JobKeeper program. Thank you and congratulations from us for a great effort.
Thank you.
Lyons Electorate: Roads
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:35): I stand to make a case for the Bagdad-Mangalore bypass. This is a road bypass that's been in the planning stages for many years—in fact, decades. It's a 17-kilometre extension of the Midland Highway just north of Pontville, and it would meet up with Dysart. All the land acquisitions are in place. This is a shovel-ready project for 17 kilometres of highway that will be a great boon to the southern regions of Tasmania and particularly my electorate.
Bagdad and Mangalore are little townships along the way. If this bypass were to go through, it would really improve the amenity in those townships for the people living there, but it would also open up hectares and hectares of new home sites and new commercial areas. This is a very fast growing region of my electorate and this would be an absolute boon.
I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and infrastructure minister. He's been quite supportive in my dealings with him to date, and I hope that continues. But, if the government's looking for shovel-ready projects—and we are expecting pretty bad news coming out this week on jobs—to create jobs and create economic opportunity, you can't do worse than backing the Bagdad-Mangalore bypass. It's been listed as a priority project. It's been in the slow lane of planning for the last few years. It's ready to go. The land acquisitions are there. It's absolutely ready to go. Back it!
COVID-19: Supporting Agricultural Shows and Field Days Program
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:37): Spring usually signifies show season back home, and at this time of year you'll commonly find me most weekends at a local show or field day in my electorate. It's a fantastic way to engage with communities and constituents. Shows or field days are a major event for regional communities, bringing them huge social and economic benefits.
This year, understandably, the majority of these events have been cancelled. In June our government committed $36 million to supporting agricultural show societies to recover from the effects of COVID-19, ensuring that they can survive this pandemic. While this was a welcome announcement for the local show societies, it sadly didn't include reference to field days. Accordingly, I set about immediately rectifying this through the agency of Minister Littleproud.
Barker has two major field days: the Riverland Field Days, usually held in mid-September each year, which attract over 15,000 people and host over 350 exhibitors over two days; and of course the South East Field Days, attracting some 22,000 people in March each year. Both these events have been cancelled this year, with the South East Field Days committee making the very difficult decision to not only cancel the 2020 field day but also the 2021 event.
I'm so pleased our government has now extended financial support to field days as well as show societies to ensure these events can remain financially viable and continue to support regional communities post pandemic.
Byrne, Mr John
Gusmao, Mr Jose
Mr GOSLING ( Solomon ) ( 13:39 ): Vale John Byrne and also vale Jose Gusmao. John Byrne was born in Bendigo and he had a successful footy and working career. He married Margaret and together they had five kids, including a mate of mine, Mike. The family moved to Bathurst Island in 1977, and John retained a lifelong respect for the Tiwi people, for their rights, self-determination and wonderful creativity.
A faithful Catholic, John ruffled a few feathers along the way due to his deeply held values and commitment, including with the St Vincent de Paul Society for decades in Darwin. John Byrne made a real contribution to our community and particularly to the less well off. Rest in peace, John.
Also leaving us in the last few days was Jose Gusmao, who unexpectedly passed away in Dili, Timor-Leste, after a heroic lifetime of contribution to his people. Jose was a highly principled man and a great leader in the struggle for Timorese independence. Former Timor-Leste president Jose Ramos-Horta said, 'There was not a day that Jose did not dream, think and act for Timor-Leste's freedom.'
Jose Gusmao was very active in Darwin in the 1990s in supporting asylum seekers and always working for self-determination for the Timorese people. Rest in peace, maun boot.
Braddon Electorate: Regional Arts Fund
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (13:40): Three local artists in the electorate of Braddon have received significant funding boosts thanks to the federal government's Regional Arts Fund. Congratulations to Cheryl Rose of Montello, Olly Read of Devonport and Emmalie Bishop of Queenstown.
Recently, I had the pleasure of having lunch with Emmalie in her newly adopted home town of Queenstown. She told me how much she loves the region and how she was immediately taken with its unique and rugged beauty. She has taken no time to immerse herself in the west coast's growing art community. Her project, entitled 'Local', will produce a series of podcasts. Over the coming months, she will interview local west coast artists, examining the role that the region's unique surroundings have on the work that they produce.
Cheryl Rose from Montello was a major grant recipient and will host workshops across the north-west region. She said funding was as much about sharing and being connected as it was about making art within the community. Devonport's Olly Read will deliver an exhibit of works from the experience of being transgender and transitioning.
Cheryl, Emmalie and Olly reflect the region's rich and diverse arts sector. I look forward to seeing their unique projects as they progress over the coming months.
Live Animal Exports
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (13:41): This month, the Al Kuwait live export ship arrived in the Middle East. According to the government's own report, a thousand of the sheep aboard were exposed to the highest heat stress level and found to be panting, with open mouths and tongues protruding. This level of heat stress, known as score 4 in the scale created by the department of agriculture, has never before been recorded in one of these reports. That, quite simply, is not only unforgiveable but also clear proof that the Northern Hemisphere summer ban should never have been dumped. Making this episode even worse is the fact that the Al Kuwait was never fit to sail from Fremantle. But, of course, it did, thanks to yet another cruel federal government exemption, because nothing must be allowed to get in the way of making money.
The live animal export trade is systemically cruel. The only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade. Moreover, it's not even in Australia's economic interests, because it has cost thousands of meatworker jobs and profits remarkably few businesses.
Frankly, how anyone can continue to support this vile trade beggars belief. It's another case of the major parties being beholden to vested interests and being entirely out of step with majority public opinion—shame on the lot of you, I say.
Mining
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:43): I apologise to OZ Minerals. Last Friday, they invited me to participate in an on-site inspection of Carrapateena, their newest mine, which is in the eastern portion of the Gawler Craton. OZ Minerals has operated for close to 20 years at Prominent Hill, a mine that has gone 10 years past its initial expectation. It continues to provide a very good income stream for both itself and Australia.
Carrapateena is envisaged to employ about 800 people. It will be a significant boost to the Grey electorate and South Australia. It's a first-class copper-gold deposit. It's expected to last 20 years, mining around four million tonnes a year using the block caving method, which sees the whole shaft collapse in on itself as it goes along.
They are good operators. They've negotiated well with the Kokatha, who are the traditional owners. They've worked with the individual landholders in the area. They've got a track record of being a very good company and having high levels of Indigenous employment. I'm looking forward to having them in the Grey electorate for many, many years to come.
Casuarina Grove Aged and Disability Care
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:44): On 25 August, 37 staff at Casuarina Grove, an aged and disability care facility at Hamlyn Terrace in my electorate, were told their jobs were being axed. Staff received an email last Tuesday informing them of planned changes at Casuarina Grove, including redundancies for staff 'out of scope'. The New South Wales Liberal government promised there would be no cuts to regional public service jobs, and now they're cutting six enrolled nurse positions and 25 service support worker positions in the middle of a pandemic.
Casuarina Grove is purpose built for aged persons with a disability. As COVID-19 continues to unfold, it's distressing to hear that local aged-care and disability workers are being left out in the cold. Workers who have been on the front line of COVID-19, offering care and support to residents of Casuarina Grove, do not deserve this. In the past 12 months, three aged-care homes in my electorate have closed, making it harder for staff facing redundancy to find local work. The state member for Wyong, David Harris, and I have written to the New South Wales Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services calling on him to freeze these redundancies, at least until after COVID-19. These aged-care and disability workers deserve our support. Staff losses will impact residents of Casuarina Grove, who've formed lifelong bonds with their carers. The loss of these connections will be felt even more deeply given the isolation and loneliness of COVID-19. The residents and staff of Casuarina Grove deserve better. The state government must reverse this heartless decision in the middle of a pandemic.
Wentworth Electorate: Community Organisations
Graham, Mr Saxon
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (13:46): Maintaining a sense of community has been tough this year, but I wanted to commend several groups in Wentworth who have risen to this challenge. Wayside Chapel provides essential services and supplies to vulnerable people and support for people who are socially isolated or homeless. They've adapted their service model during COVID to provide more outreach rather than centre based services. A few weeks back, I visited Wayside and spoke to the pastor, Jon Owen, and staff as they packed their bags ready for a night walking the streets to locate and support those in need.
I also had the pleasure of visiting COA during one of their community lunches a few weeks back. COA provide weekly lunches along with COVID-safe seated singing and activities for elderly residents in the area. COA have buses to transport their community to and from the lunches so that all who want to can attend.
I would also like to acknowledge here the inspiring efforts of one Wentworth local, Saxon Graham, who I had the pleasure of spending some time with earlier this month. Saxon is a well-known figure in the community who persistently seeks to assist others and make a contribution. For over 20 years, he has enthusiastically volunteered and assisted at the Holdsworth Community Centre, helping elderly residents with their shopping and their transport needs. Particularly during the uncertainty of current times, Saxon's familiar smiling face has been a comfort to many. I would like to congratulate Saxon, the Holdsworth centre, COA and Wayside Chapel for their efforts to keep those most in need socially connected and supported during these difficult times.
Newcastle Makers and Traders
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:47): Today I'd like to give a massive shout-out to an awesome alliance of independent local businesses in my of Newcastle—the Makers and Traders. While 2020 has been a tough year for so many businesses, the Newcastle Makers and Traders have been hard at work at a brand-new concept to entice new and existing customers to support our amazing local creative, independent business community. Last week they launched the Newcastle Treasure Map, which promotes 50 local independent stores. It showcases our city as a premier creative destination and encourages visitors and locals alike to discover Newcastle's unique offerings. Split into central, east and west sections, the Newcastle Treasure Map shines a spotlight on some much-loved local destinations, including Pappa Sven, Alie Jane, Make Space, estabar, High Tea with Mrs Woo, Studio Melt, Monsoon Living, Abicus, Timeless Textiles, Porky's Nest, Ramjet, Blackbird Corner and Olive Tree Market, just to name a few of my favourites.
Living through a pandemic makes it more important than ever to support local business. Our local artists, shops, cafes and restaurants have always been there for us. Now it's our turn to make sure that they stay open and thrive into the future. If you find yourself in Newcastle, head straight to the visitor information centre or call into my office and grab a copy of the treasure map to make sure you get to experience the very best that Newcastle Makers and Traders have to offer.
Children's Toys: Safety
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (13:49): I rise to commend some welcome news for families in the electorate of Ryan. To help protect younger children, the Morrison government has approved a new mandatory safety standard for toys with loose, small, high-powered magnets. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's new mandatory safety standard will limit toys with loose, small, high-powered magnets to scientific sets for children aged eight years and over. Children are at risk of serious injury or death if they swallow these high-powered magnets. If a child swallows more than one of these magnets, they can join together and stick to the child's intestinal and digestive tissue and lead to serious injuries and even death. Horrifically, these internal injuries have been likened by doctors to the severity of a gunshot wound. The magnets also pose significant choking hazards to young children.
These measures are designed to protect younger children, who are more likely to swallow the hazardous magnets as they learn and play. Under the mandatory standard, toys containing hazardous magnets must pass rigorous safety testing and will be required to carry a warning statement alerting parents to the hazard. The new mandatory standard will be implemented over the next 12 months. I'd like to congratulate Minister Sukkar and the ACCC for taking this very important step, and I look forward to their corresponding work on button batteries very soon. It's just another way that the Morrison government is reaching out to support Aussie families and Aussie kids.
Queensland Government: COVID-19
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:51): I rise in the House today to thank the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, and the Queensland government for their exceptional leadership and response to the COVID-19 crisis. Measures have been in place to keep borders closed. In a new poll that has been released, based on 36,000 votes, 64 per cent of Queenslanders voted against opening borders. Thanks to the Queensland government, as of today there is only one new COVID case and over 895,000 COVID tests have been conducted. But, due to the current outbreak in the south-west of Brisbane, we are not out of the woods yet.
The Prime Minister and the LNP have yet again called for the borders to be opened. I commend the Premier for standing her ground against this, because health comes first. As the Premier said this morning, the economy cannot grow without having health under control. My message to the state LNP and the current Leader of the Opposition, Deb Frecklington, is clear: you keep the economy strong by keeping the virus under control. People's health needs have to come first. In fact, 64 times those opposite demanded that we let people with COVID into Queensland. Thank God we did not listen to them. Thank God our Premier was strong, took the health advice and kept our borders in place.
Queenslanders and those from nearby areas needing help will not be forgotten. I commend the Palaszczuk government for the work they are doing to keep Queenslanders safe. As a result, we can see Queenslanders getting back to work and the Queensland economy moving again.
Forde Electorate: Mental Health
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (13:52): Mental health is an incredibly important issue for many in our communities, and the health and wellbeing of young people in Forde is no different. That's why during the 2019 federal election campaign the Morrison government committed to establishing a new headspace on the northern Gold Coast. On 21 August this year we delivered on that commitment with the official opening of headspace Upper Coomera. Headspace Upper Coomera will deliver world-class mental health and wellbeing support for thousands of people on the growing northern Gold Coast corridor. There are family rooms, individual consultation rooms, fun spaces and large meeting rooms to accommodate group activities, and lots of technology to help the youth with other things they might need a hand with, such as getting a job and assisting with their education.
I want to thank young people in Forde and across Australia and let them know that they are not alone in their journey. I want them to know that we are there with them all the way. Headspace is here to help you overcome whatever challenges life may throw at you. In fact, since opening, headspace Upper Coomera has delivered 356 occasions of service and received 201 referrals, with 73 of those coming from the existing Southport service alone. We know how challenging the past couple of months have been. If you are a young person struggling with your mental health, hop onto your computer or phone and visit headspace.org.au and have a look at the fantastic resources and services that are on offer. Thank you to the whole team at headspace at Upper Coomera.
Kingston Electorate: COVID 19
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:54): Stephen Lavender, who lives in my electorate, is now a widower. He lost his wife, Linda, to COVID-19. They had been married for 38 years. She leaves behind their three children and four grandchildren. Unfortunately, she contracted COVID-19 on that ill-fated Ruby Princess cruise. The couple booked for what was supposed to be a trip of a lifetime, well before the pandemic and well before anyone could predict what was to happen. Steve said he felt a sense of dread when they departed, as their departure was delayed five hours to cleanse the terminal, but, in his words, it was his first cruise. Linda was one of the 20 Ruby Princess passengers who died. Half the deaths in South Australia were directly linked to the Ruby Princess.
Premier Berejiklian's apology can only go so far. It does not fix some of the monumental mistakes made by officials handling the situation. Steve told the Advertiser: 'It is not good enough just to say sorry. They should've quarantined everyone on the boat.' He told me that there was no-one there—no-one from Health, no-one from Customs. 'People from North America joined us in New Zealand, yet the only person from Border Security was the person accepting the forms of people from overseas.'
The government knew these passengers had a high chance of being exposed to the deadly virus. Steve, like many others, has questions. Why was there no-one handling the passengers? Why were there not more precautions put in place? Steve says he wants to speak to the Prime Minister personally, honestly and respectfully, to be reassured that the lessons have been learned.
The SPEAKER: The member's time has concluded, and I call the member for Bonner.
Bonner Electorate: Roads
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:55): I am very pleased to share some exciting news from my electorate of Bonner. The notorious Rochedale Road roundabout upgrade is now fully funded. I delivered $14 million towards this vital upgrade in 2019 and have advocated, alongside the Rochedale community, to secure the remainder of funding through a joint project with the Logan and Brisbane City councils. I thank the member for Rankin for acknowledging my efforts, as this upgrade impacts on his electorate as well. Thank you to everyone who has joined the fight and signed my online petition to deliver a safer intersection. Thanks to the petition, and pressure from the LNP candidate for Mansfield, Janet Wishart, and LNP candidate for Springwood, Kirrily Boulton, this vital upgrade will happen.
Last month, both councils handed down their 2020-21 budget and have finally included the Rochedale intersection in their infrastructure budgets. I'm so pleased both councils were able to reach a funding agreement, and, alongside the $14 million Morrison government funding, we will be able to deliver the safety upgrade to the Rochedale community. The intersection of Rochedale and Priestdale roads is currently a single-lane roundabout located on the council boundary. It is a key intersection for the local community, as it is located in the middle of five educational centres and schools.
Well done to everyone who fought to fix the Rochedale roundabout. This is a win for schools, for students, for commuters and for the Rochedale community.
Higher Education
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (13:57): The Prime Minister is so desperate to make it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university that he's now stooped to using dodgy numbers to back in his case. In a media release yesterday, the Minister for Education made a claim about the employment prospects of humanities graduates. The only problem was that those numbers were completely dodgy. The release compared employment rates for humanities students one year after graduation with employment rates for other students three years after graduation. That's like comparing the development of a one-year-old and a three-year-old and then saying the one-year-old can't run as fast! It's really quite outrageous.
The truth is that, within three years of finishing university, humanities graduates are employed at the same rate as science and maths graduates, both at around 87 per cent. But the government is trying to more than double the cost of a humanities degree. The minister should know that humanities graduates are employable—after all, he's got three humanities degrees, and it hasn't stopped him getting a job.
The Liberals can hide the facts all they like. They are still jacking up fees for tens of thousands of students. This year, when it's been so hard for those year 12 kids who've been in lockdown and remote learning, they should know better.
World War II
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (13:59): Fifteen August 2020 marked 75 years since the end of World War II. For those men and women who served in the Second World War, their service to our nation did not end there. It didn't end with the hanging up of their uniform. Their service and their dedication to our nation continues to this day. We see it in the actions of the veterans still living, who continue to contribute to our communities, and it lives on in the stories of family members that served, those stories which filter through generations and still have the power to shape and inspire us.
Mr Geoff McClements, a constituent of Curtin, is one such veteran, who at the age of 97 is still brimming with a passion for service and love for Australia. In 1941, at the age of just 18, he enlisted in the Navy and served until 1946. Geoff has been an active member of the Curtin community. He was a well-known player for the Claremont footy club and has for 50 years been a passionate volunteer at his local RSL. I am reliably informed that, on an average Remembrance Day, Geoff can sell in excess of a thousand poppies by mid-morning. Geoff was also made RSL ANZAC of the Year in 2016 and is a freeman of the town of Claremont. Geoff, 90 seconds will never do you justice; thank you for your service.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. Before we go to questions, just for the information of honourable members, in order to record the historic nature of our sittings at the moment, you'll notice photographers at each of the three ceremonial entrances capturing some of the images. Our well-known government photographer is there at the moment and will be joined by some others as we begin question time, and they'll be there through the week to get different angles on some of the shots.
MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:01): I inform the House that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of the week. The Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure will answer questions on his behalf, as the acting minister.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Aged Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Under John Howard, Bronwyn Bishop lost her job when an aged-care resident died in connection with the kerosene baths scandal. Aged-care residents are now so neglected that up to half are suffering from malnutrition, one had ants crawling from open wounds and over 400 have died from COVID-19. Why does the current aged-care minister still have his job?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:02): Because, under this aged-care minister, $1.5 billion of additional support has been put into the aged-care sector during the COVID-19 crisis. When additional resources are required to address the significant challenges in the aged-care sector, the minister has consistently brought forward submissions for additional support to be provided right across the board in the aged-care sector to ensure the viability of the sector, to ensure that there's additional and appropriate training being provided, there's additional workforce support—$1.5 billion, including the more than $500 million that was announced by the Minister for Health and the minister of aged care today, just today, to ensure the extension of COVID arrangements which is necessary.
This is a challenging crisis; I think we all understand that. And, as we always do when it comes to the support that we're providing—whether it's directly to Australians through things like JobKeeper or JobSeeker, or the supports that are necessary for the aged-care sector as we address the significant challenges there, particularly in Victoria, where we've had the significant outbreak of community transmission—on each occasion, we will continue to assess the needs, and the supports will be provided. The announcement of an additional more than half a billion dollars for aged-care support, which extends the current arrangements for additional support further, particularly because of the situation that we have seen in Victoria, where there have been additional challenges for the system following the significant community outbreak that has occurred.
In addition, it has also been the strong advocacy and work of the minister for aged care that has ensured that our government has kept pace in continuing to increase the number of in-home aged-care places in this country. There were the 10,000 additional places we took to the last election. Since then, we have provided not only those 10,000 places but an extra 16,000 on top of that, and that was done with the full support and advocacy of the minister for aged care.
COVID-19: Economy
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison government is focused on securing Australia's future by building the road to economic recovery from the effects of the coronavirus pandemic?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:04): I thank the member for her question and I thank her for the tremendous work she is doing on the Gold Coast with our other members from the Gold Coast, dealing with those difficult challenges there. Whichever sector it has been—the entertainment sector, the tourism sector or the events sector—the member has been a keen advocate both directly to me and the Treasurer and to many other ministers.
Australia is making its way back. We are making our way back. There has been a more than 60 per cent recovery in the stock market since the hit of COVID-19 earlier this year. There have been 343,000 jobs have been re-established in the economy after that first hit. Fifty per cent of the losses in aggregate hours worked in this country have been recovered since that first fall. Consumer confidence has recovered 80 per cent of the losses since that time, as has business confidence, according to the NAB survey. There was a 13.5 per cent fall in loan deferrals in July, and $250 billion has been raised in bonds and T notes—with, on bonds, more than four times coverage. That has enabled us to provide JobKeeper and JobSeeker support. Because of the strong financial position of the government as we went into this crisis, it meant we could raise the funds in those markets to ensure JobKeeper, which has been a lifeline to Australians, as has JobSeeker, throughout the course of this pandemic.
But we have to focus on the road back, as well, as we continue to journey back. The Victorian wave of this pandemic has meant the stall in the recovery that we were going through—where we were on the road to recovery in June. Of course that has slowed things down. That has not just impacted Victoria but has affected other states and territories as well.
What we need to do is continue to focus on the road back. The restrictions and arrangements we have today are not things that we want to see by Christmas. What we want to know is what is going to happen when we get to not just 1 September but 1 October, 1 November, 1 December and 1 January, because our economy needs to continue on the road back and we need to continue to work together to ensure that we can open up the economy safely, just as we were doing in May and June, and as we were going to be doing into July, when we hit the big setback with that second big outbreak in Victoria. What we now need to focus on is ensuring the road back. But the road back also is a longer term road back—that is, support for training and skills, with more than $3 billion committed by this government for training and skills; affordable and reliable energy, particularly in the gas sector; infrastructure bring-forwards of almost $10 billion, whether it is in water or in roads or, indeed, in energy, where that is required; supporting manufacturing, and our defence manufacturing industries in particular; easing the cost of doing business; and supporting industrial relations flexibility— (Time expired)
Aged Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. The aged-care minister has boasted he has responded 'incredibly well', and that Australia is in a 'good position' and that we are extremely fortunate to have hit—I kid you not—a 'high-water mark' on aged care. Why is the government congratulating itself on a job well done when over 400 aged-care residents have died?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:08): Every single one of those deaths is a great heartbreak for every single one of those families, and for the member to suggest that the government doesn't feel that way I don't think is an honest reflection of the government's position or the minister's position. That is not the minister's view, it is not my view and it is not the view of the members of the government.
What I can say, though, is that when we came to government the annual expenditure on aged care was $14.2 billion. In the recent budget it was $21.4 billion. The number of in-home aged-care places has increased from 60,000 to more than 150,000 places, with 97 per cent of those who are waiting for an in-home aged-care place already receiving at least some form of support for their aged-care condition. So, whether it's the increase in funding for in-home aged care, whether it's the overall increase in funding for residential aged care, whether it's the establishment of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission, whether it's the instigation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety by our government and the extension of its inquiries into issues directly related to COVID, this government will continue to invest more in aged care every single year. In the next budget, we will invest more. There has been some $3 billion of investment in additional in-home aged-care places in just the last three years.
I do note this, particularly, in relation to in-home aged care. We took to the last election a policy, which was set out in our budget, of 10,000 additional aged-care places. That's what we set out, about 18 months ago, and we took that to the Australian people. Those opposite, at the same election, agreed with that plan. They thought the 10,000 figure was exactly the right plan, because they did not offer one additional place as part of their election plan, despite raising some $387 billion in additional revenue that could have provided for additional places. What did our government do? We not only committed to those 10,000 places; we provided an additional 10,000 beyond that, in the MYEFO that followed, and an additional more than 6,000 beyond that, bringing the total to more than 26,000. So those who come into this place and want to make recommendations about aged care need to look at what they put to the people at the last election. They supported the government's plan at the last election, before the COVID crisis. I'll leave others to conclude as to why they're raising these issues in this context now.
COVID-19: Infrastructure
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (14:11): 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, through investment in critical infrastructure, is providing a pathway to recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:12): I thank the honourable member for his question. The member for Lyne works hard creating jobs in his electorate. I know how hard he works for local government, ensuring that that they've got the money, the funds, federally gained, to help with the local roads and community infrastructure projects and programs that are rolling out across his electorate. He knows that the recovery and the relief efforts out of COVID-19 are going to ensure jobs in his electorate, and throughout the other 536 local government areas of this nation, which are going to be so vital for that pathway out. In Lyne, the infrastructure program is rolling out, as it is across the rest of the nation—$100 billion over the next decade. We want to put in place the roads, the rail, the airports—all the infrastructure that's going to help ensure that we get through this crisis. Millions of dollars will be spent across local government areas in the Lyne electorate, and the member for Lyne is fighting hard for those jobs. Eighty-five thousand jobs—that's what the 10-year plan, the blueprint, the vision, that we have for our nation is supporting.
There's no better example of the Australian government's Infrastructure Investment Program than the 1,700-kilometre 'corridor of commerce', the Inland Rail. It is ensuring that regional New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland are going to have 24-hour access to the ports of Melbourne and Brisbane. Some of the 16,000 jobs that that project is supporting have been realised in the Parkes to Narromine section. I was there on 15 January 2018, when the first shipment of steel—Whyalla steel, Australian steel; that's Australian jobs—was dropped off at Peak Hill for the start of that project. Already, OneSteel in Whyalla has supplied 14,000 tonnes for the Parkes to Narromine section and nearly 25,000 tonnes for Narrabri to North Star. As construction of a further 12 sections of the Inland Rail continues, that means more jobs. That means regional Australia is going to be benefiting from this absolutely nation-building piece of infrastructure.
Stephen Stewart of SLS Transport in Geurie, south-east of Dubbo, said: 'We've put on an extra five staff. We've been able to invest in some of the extra plant equipment. We've always tried to spend locally on repairs and maintenance to help the community.' That's what they do. That's a great little small business, just like the small businesses in the member for Lyne's electorate. They benefit when we spend money in local councils, through local procurement and through making sure that those small businesses have the support, federally gained, from the programs and projects that we're rolling out. These projects are vital to the pathway to recovery; these projects are important for regional Australia.
Aged Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:14): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his previous answer, where he questioned why Labor was raising the aged-care question in this parliament. Does the Prime Minister seriously not understand that it is legitimate for Labor to be asking questions in this parliament on behalf of the more than 450 families who are grieving lost loved ones who have been lost during the COVID-19 crisis?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:15): I do acknowledge that. What I was implying—and maybe I can be more direct so that the Leader of the Opposition is not confused about my position. In my answer to the last question, I set out very clearly that at the last election the government took a policy to that election which set out some 10,000 additional home-care places to support people who are elderly in this country and to ensure that they get their care. Every single death in aged care, whether it has been through this COVID-19 crisis or at any time is of great grief to the families who are involved. I am not suggesting that there is one person in this place who does not grieve with those families and we extend our sympathies to each and every one of them. What I was simply noting was this: that in fact we took some $725 million in additional commitments in the aged-care sector to the last election, which included the additional 10,000 in-home-care places. That was followed up after the election in the plan we had taken—which the opposition actually agreed to, as to what was necessary for aged care. But we provided an additional $624 million in the midyear statement that followed it. In the recent July economic forecasting document there was a further $813 million.
Our government has been responding to those needs. Those opposite may seek to come into this place and politicise aged care in the way they have been doing now for some time, but the truth about the plans we have put in place is that they have supported those plans and they did not offer one cent or one extra place on one occasion, and that's what speaks for itself.
Kennedy Electorate: Hells Gates Dam
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (14:17): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Are you aware of the most serious concerns about why Townsville Enterprise is oversighting a small parochial weir in Charters Towers, and the more serious implications of SMEC and TEL again being contracted to work on Hells Gates? Their initial proposal destroyed Bradfield forever. Not one of the 15 reports on Bradfield and Hells Gates have recommended a dam below 295 metres, high enough to gravitate water through the great divide. Can you ensure that your recent initiatives redirect cert responsibilities, ensuring a high dam?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:18): I thank the member for Kennedy for his ongoing passion for water infrastructure in North Queensland and elsewhere in the nation. I share that vision and passion with him. I know that Deb Frecklington, the next premier of Queensland, does so too. She also shares that blueprint—that vision.
John Bradfield was an outstanding engineer, and we all know that: the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the electrification of rail projects and bridges, and of course he had that vision for water for our nation. Elements of that of course are part of the water infrastructure rollout that we are investing in right now. The North Queensland Water Infrastructure Authority is headed by Richard McLoughlin. I know that the member for Kennedy knows him well. It has responsibility, as does the government, of course, and as does the Queensland government, for the Hells Gates Dam scheme, including Big Rocks Weir, the Hughenden irrigation scheme and western Queensland irrigation and agricultural projects. I know the member for Kennedy is parochial for Charters Towers. There's a population of around 8,000, and he wants to see that population increase, as do I and as do members of the government.
For far too long our regional communities have had their population either decrease or remain steady. There's only one way we're going to increase those populations in those particular regional communities, and that is through building the right infrastructure, whether it's water or rail, to grow agriculture from a $60 billion enterprise to a $100 billion enterprise by 2030. I know the member for Kennedy shares that vision with the National Farmers' Federation, with the agriculture minister and with the government that sits on these benches.
The Australian government has committed $24 million from the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund to fully fund a detailed business case and environmental impact statement. The first major project milestone has been achieved, with the delivery of the final business case for Big Rocks Weir in August—that is, this month. The business case indicates the Big Rocks Weir will deliver strong benefits for the Charters Towers region and for Queensland.
We need water for agriculture and we need it for resources. They're going to be the two big sectors, along with infrastructure, that are going to help us out of COVID-19. Benefits include more than 200 construction and agriculture jobs, improved water security for Charters Towers and higher value irrigation opportunities for the region. I know, when it comes to Hughenden, Jane McNamara, the Mayor of Flinders, is right behind those projects.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is now warned! The member for Hunter will cease interjecting.
Mr McCORMACK: The Australian government has committed $30 million for the immediate construction of the Big Rocks Weir. We want to build water infrastructure. We can't do it alone; we have to do it with state governments. I am looking forward, after 31 October, to being able to work with the LNP to do just that: grow agriculture through water infrastructure. (Time expired)
Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—
Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members for Lyons and Hunter, this is your final mention. I'm not going to keep repeating myself about how I won't have any tolerance for loud and repeated interjections. It's all there in last week's Hansard. You'll have time to read it back in your office if you keep interjecting.
COVID-19: Economy
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (14:22): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain to the House how the Morrison government is securing Australia's future by building the road to economic recovery as we come out the other side of the coronavirus pandemic?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:22): I thank the member for Higgins for her question and acknowledge her experience before coming to this place as a professor of paediatrics and as a fellow of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr FRYDENBERG: I hear lots of interjections from those opposite; they only wish they had the qualifications the member for Higgins does.
The reality is that COVID-19 has been an economic shock to Australia like no other. It has been an economic shock on both the supply and the demand side. When we came to government, unemployment was at 5.7 per cent. In February we got it down to 5.1 per cent, but it is the expectation that unemployment will reach around 10 per cent by the end of the year. The Morrison government's response has been swift and substantial, with a JobKeeper program which is today supporting more than 3½ million workers and around one million businesses. It's a 'remarkable program', in the words of the Governor of the Reserve Bank.
Businesses like The Gables, a wedding venue in the member's electorate, run by Jessica, has 10 people in the JobKeeper program. She has said that the income has stopped but the bills keep coming in. Without JobKeeper, she would be fearing for the future of her business, which she has been in possession of for the last 25 years. It's not only JobKeeper; it's also the cash flow boost, which is providing support of up to $100,000 to small and medium-sized businesses to assist with working capital. It's also been the $750 payments that we've provided to millions of Australians, including pensioners, who are on income support. These programs are working, because, of the 1.3 million Australians who either lost their job or saw their working hours reduced to zero since the start of this crisis, around 700,000 are now back in work. In the last two months 340,000 jobs were created, and 58 per cent of those jobs went to women and 44 per cent of those jobs went to young people. That is a positive sign of the programs that the Morrison government has undertaken.
Our JobMaker plan continues to help businesses remain in business and Australians remain in jobs—for example, the work we are doing on industrial relations around casuals, around greenfield sites and around award simplification and infrastructure, bringing forward up to $10 billion worth of spending. When it comes to red tape, we are harmonising the occupational licensing laws around this country—the first time that that would have been done after years of debate. On skills: there are 340,000 new places, training positions, to help equip people for the jobs of the future. And, of course, there is tax, with incentives like the instant asset write-off. This is the Morrison government getting on with creating and delivering jobs.
Aged Care
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (14:25): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister knows workers moving between different facilities is a key driver of infection of the deadly COVID virus. Given the opportunity he had over the weekend, can he now advise whether aged-care workers are still working across multiple facilities?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (14:26): As I advised in the press conference previously, we have AUSMAT workers working across a variety of facilities in Victoria. We have ADF facilities that now have completed a very significant number of cases. We also have testing capacity which is delivered across a variety of facilities. These are people working in aged care precisely because they need to deliver services to different facilities on different sites.
In addition to that, following agreements between the unions and the providers, the work with the Commonwealth and Victoria, the Commonwealth single-site workers scheme was put in place. That is a system that is designed to ensure that the overwhelming majority of workers do work on one site. The reason that provision has been made for individuals—and I think it is very important to be upfront about this—to do that is to leave no facility short of workers. I am sure that not one person here would support the concept that a facility should be left short of workers.
The design that was adopted came from the sector in conjunction with the unions, with strong support to make sure that each individual facility was able, to the best of its ability, to adopt a single-site worker program. With the ADF, with AUSMAT, with nursing support surge staff—for example, from Western Health, which has worked across, I believe, over 30 different sites—and with the testing facilities needing to work across a variety of facilities, it is fundamental that that flexibility is in place. However, having said that, the design of the overarching system was agreed with the workforce, was agreed with the providers, was developed with the Victorian government and was designed to make sure that two things occurred: that the possibility of workers working across multiple sites was dramatically reduced but that the capacity for each and every facility to have an unbroken workforce was maintained.
COVID-19: Vaccine
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is investing in research into a potential COVID-19 vaccine whilst also continuing to provide critical support to Australians by listing lifesaving medications on the PBS?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (14:28): I want to thank the member for Sturt, who, in the short time since he has come to this place, has been a great advocate for vaccines and for medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
In terms of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, new medicines will be listed tomorrow, including for lymphocytic leukaemia and lymphocytic lymphoma. Calquence is a medicine which will help over 1,600 patients have access to a lifesaving or life-changing medicine that would otherwise would have been beyond their reach at $140,000. Similarly, we now have, with Keytruda, a medicine for melanoma, a condition which can affect 15,000 Australians in any one year. Eight-hundred-and-fifty will specifically benefit from Keytruda being expanded for a new indication in terms of melanoma. That will assist 850 patients. It will allow them to access a medicine which would otherwise have cost $100,000 or more per year, and it will give them a real shot at life—a real chance to have the opportunity. We know the history. We know that this is something that this side of government has been completely committed to as a fundamental tenet of belief. It's something which the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been advocates of and supporters for. We know this because of the history of that—which was stopped in 2011.
Having said that, the other great task we are embarked upon at the same time is the search for a vaccine. We've invested $5 million in the University of Queensland's molecular clamp. All up, we are investing over $350 million in vaccine research to help protect Australians, as part of the first limb of our vaccine strategy. What that means is that we're working in Australia on a homegrown protection as well as at the same time working on international purchasing, where we've struck our first and most important first stage agreement in relation to the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine. Secondly, we are a part of the Gavi Covax Facility program, having completed all that can be done to this point in time. And, thirdly, we are working on manufacturing agreements, particularly in Australia, for delivering the vaccines to Australians at the earliest possible time.
In short, whether it's the PBS or whether it's vaccinations for Australians—these are fundamental tenets of faith for those on our side. We do this with the belief that they save and protect lives and they will be, fundamentally, part of the road out for Australians.
COVID-19: Aged Care
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister. In its response to Newmarch House, the New South Wales government said that it had to 'step in' and ensure aged-care facilities had a plan to deal with COVID-19 outbreaks, because of an 'apparent lack of preparedness'. Why was the New South Wales government forced to step in to do the Commonwealth's job, and isn't this just more evidence that the Prime Minister left aged-care residents vulnerable to the deadly COVID virus because he didn't have a plan?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (14:32): As I tendered to the parliament last week in reading from both the pandemic health plan, which was published on 18 February and activated on 27 February, and also the aged-care plan, which was published on 13 March and activated as of that day following the advice of the Communicable Diseases Network Australia and the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, there is a fundamental pairing of actions here. Firstly, overall responsibility for funding and regulation in aged care sits with the Commonwealth. The overall response for public health, in any circumstance where there is an outbreak, rests with the states, and so therefore there is close cooperation.
In particular, that is why we set up four fundamental pillars in response to this risk to Australians in aged care. Firstly, on 11 March, we set up the surge workforce capacity, with $101 million. Secondly, on 13 March, we set up the public hospitals response and the public hospitals agreement, which has been used widely in Victoria. Thirdly, on 31 March, we set up the National Partnership on COVID-19 Response, which brought 57,000 nurses and 104,000 private hospital staff into the fight to protect our hospitals and our aged-care residents. Then fourthly, in April, we also set up the national testing contract—for every site around Australia with even one positive case to have every worker and every resident tested. As part of that, in relation to Newmarch House, we did work very closely with the New South Wales government and the public health unit, which did take the lead, as per the CDNA and as per the public health agreements—precisely in line with that which had been agreed and precisely in line with the structures. I want to thank them for what they did as part of that work. I also want to thank the independent assessor, Professor Gilbert, who, at our request, inquired into the responses in both Dorothy Henderson Lodge and Newmarch.
In particular, the important thing here is what we have been able to see is a cooperative outcome, and we've been able to build, with those four pillars, on the protections. Every day, we fight to protect these lives and, every day, we recognise that there's a global pandemic which targets the elderly by the very nature of this disease, which is why we've taken the measures which have been so difficult and challenging for Australians. It's also why we have focused so specifically from the outset, with the first of the major actions with regard to aged care occurring on 31 January. We'll continue fighting to help protect and save every life.
COVID-19: Industry
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Would the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting the road to recovery from the economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic by backing innovative Australian businesses to take their products to the world and be part of global supply chains?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:35): I thank the member for her question. While businesses and communities across our nation have been suffering from many, many restrictions and challenges as part of COVID-19, it's very important that we also make sure that we are focusing on our future. Our government understands that the key to our economic recovery is making sure that our businesses are resilient, that they are competitive and that they are in a position that they can scale up to take on the world, and that's exactly what we are doing.
Last week I opened new grants for Australian businesses so that they can be part of the global space industry supply chain and participate in NASA's Moon to Mars project. Let me be clear: this is not money that is going to NASA; this is money that is going to Australian businesses so that they can be part of the supply chain for that Moon to Mars project. The member for Boothby has visited the Australian Space Agency and Lot Fourteen a number of times, so she is very much aware of the Australian Space Agency and the work that they are doing—specifically, the work that they are doing to help our businesses to grow. We are making sure that we do continue to support the Australian space industry as it grows to achieve the target of tripling in size by 2030.
There's also work that we are doing to support businesses that have already developed some great innovations but need some assistance to take those products to market. We have in place a program, the Accelerating Commercialisation grants program, and I recently announced that there were 12 Australian businesses that were going to share in $5 million worth of grant funding to take their products to the world. That includes $500,000 for Fireball International for their pioneering product to detect and report on bushfires. Fireball's system means that fires can be detected in, quite frankly, about three minutes, which is exactly one of the products that we need to be supporting. There are other products that we are also supporting as part of this program, including a project that turns waste into activated carbon, and a new system that enhances flavour and storage of food products. This is Aussie ingenuity at its absolute best, and that's exactly what we need at this point in time. We understand that economic recovery is not just about keeping businesses in business but about helping them grow and create the jobs of the future.
COVID-19: Aged Care
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (14:38): My question is again to the Prime Minister. The New South Wales government says it was forced to take 'assertive action to clarify the responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth regulator' during the deadly COVID outbreak at Newmarch House. Why did the New South Wales government have to tell the Commonwealth to do its job and protect frail and vulnerable aged-care residents?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:39): The responsibilities of the Commonwealth have been well set out. I've set them out to this House on many occasions, and they're well understood. We're responsible for the regulation and funding of aged-care facilities, and that's why we continue to invest a billion dollars and more every year in our responsibilities to ensure that our elderly residents in our communities are looked after as best we possibly can in their homes or in those facilities themselves.
Those responsibilities are very clear. When there is an overlap with public health responsibilities, whether it's in New South Wales or Victoria or any other place—we've worked also very constructively with the Queensland government when it comes to these matters. The Queensland government's response plan has proved also very effective, working with the federal government's plan. That has ensured that, in relation to outbreaks, we've been able to limit any further impact in those places. Our plan and our responsibilities are very clear. We will continue to fulfil those responsibilities with more than $1 billion every single year in support for the aged-care sector.
JobKeeper Program
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:40): My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney please update the House on how the Morrison government's JobKeeper program, and it's important industrial relations flexibilities, is supporting the road to recovery from the economic effects of the pandemic?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:40): I thank the member for her question and for her great support and advocacy, particularly for small- and medium-sized businesses. The JobKeeper changes that we made earlier this year provide critical IR flexibilities to businesses, and 95 per cent of the businesses who had the benefit of those flexibilities on JobKeeper were small- and medium-sized businesses. There have been an enormous number of businesses contact the government and describe how critical those flexibilities were and are. One of them was an Australian owned tourist coach business which had been operating, pre COVID, since 1926. They said: 'The flexibility arrangements allowed our company to reduce hours of work to in part meet the drop in company revenue. Without these flexibilities we would have reduced staff numbers and/or possibly shut down altogether.'
The government is very clear in its position. We think that those flexibilities should be extended to those businesses that were in extreme distress but are still in very significant distress. The position of members opposite about this legacy group of businesses, as we have described them, is very clear. The member for Watson said, 'We don't agree with that.' And the reason they don't agree with that, notwithstanding that these flexibilities are business- and job-saving lifelines for many businesses in Australia, is that, as the member for Watson has argued, the position of members opposite is that the flexibilities could allow someone on a minimum wage to be worse-off. The first problem with that argument is it ignores that the very real-world alternative is that that person doesn't have a job because the business fails. That's what it fundamentally ignores.
And there are other problems. The figures that were used by the member for Watson do not take into account the fact that these can be used in conjunction with JobSeeker—the wage—and we are increasing the income-free area from $106 to $300, which seriously mitigates any form of loss. Another problem is it ignores the fact that there are built-in protections.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left.
Mr PORTER: The direction can only be given if the employee cannot be usefully employed for normal hours because of changes. But the final and most interesting problem is that it is the exact opposite of the position that they had earlier argued. The member Watson said, 'Well, you have to look at the good will that's out there.' And he referred to an agreement between the Australian Hotels Association and the United Workers Union. He said: 'For full-timers, they'll be able during this time to significantly cut how many shifts they've got but keep them on the books. Businesses understand how important it is to keep these people on the books.' And what was that with respect to? A reduction down to 60 per cent of the hours—exactly what we are doing now except that, at the time that they supported it, there were no protections built in.
Aged Care
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:44): My question is to the Prime Minister. This month the aged care royal commission heard that after the deadly Newmarch House outbreak the Commonwealth still doesn't have protocols with all states, stating: 'It's unacceptable that such arrangements were not in place in February. It is unforgivable that they are still not in place in August.' After hundreds of deaths, why are Commonwealth funded and regulated aged-care facilities still unprepared for an outbreak of COVID-19?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (14:44): I will directly turn to the national standards that were established in conjunction with the states and territories as part of the Australian Health Sector Emergency Response Plan for Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19), released on 18 February, activated on 27 February.
An honourable member: Is this the response for aged care?
Mr HUNT: I will read it, absolutely. Section 4.1.4, which addresses the relationship precisely between the Commonwealth and every state and territory, says:
The Australian Government will also be responsible for residential aged care facilities; working with other healthcare providers to set standards to promote the safety and security of people in aged care and other institutional settings …
It further states:
State and territory governments are responsible for the operational aspects of public health responses.
This document was passed through the AHPPC, or the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, or the medical expert panel. It further states that state and territory governments will:
… implement infection control guidelines and healthcare safety and quality standards. They will establish systems to promote the safety and security of people in aged care and other institutional settings and support outbreak investigation and management in residential aged care facilities, schools, prisons and other institutions.
Equally, specifically and exclusively in relation to aged care, the national aged care plan published on 13 March 2020, developed through the Communicable Diseases Network Australia, which is a subcommittee of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, or medical expert panel, said very clearly in relation to the respective responsibilities of the Commonwealth and the states and territories:
State/territory public health section in the Departments of Health will act in an advisory role to assist RCF to detect, characterise and manage COVID-19 outbreaks. This includes:
assisting facilities to confirm outbreaks
providing advice on obtaining testing samples
providing guidance on outbreak management
monitoring for severity of illness (record deaths and hospitalisations)
informing relevant stakeholders of outbreaks
informing clinical care providers in the local health district.
Both of these are the foundational documents of the national aged-care preparedness COVID plan. Both were developed in conjunction with the states and territories. Both share and assign responsibilities appropriately across Commonwealth and state and territory bodies. Both are published documents. They have been available since 18 February and 13 March, respectively. Both are available, and, most significantly, they have actually provided the framework for cooperation, which has allowed thousands of lives to have been saved.
We grieve every life lost, every single life lost, but we also know that what we've done through containment and capacity has made a profound difference and we will continue and to do so and fight for every life— (Time expired)
Defence Industry
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (14:47): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting the road to recovery from the economic effects of the pandemic by backing Australian jobs through the investment in our defence industry?
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (14:47): I thank the member for Braddon for his question and acknowledge his 20 years of distinguished service in the Australian Army, and I thank him for his passion for the Australian defence industry. The Morrison government is supporting our road to recovery, supporting Australians jobs with its $270 billion investment in our Australian defence capability. In February I announced our plan to put small defence industry front and centre with our decision-making. Over the last six months, even during these challenging COVID times, we have been able to achieve systematic changes with respect to decision making and defence industry.
I have three that I want to mention. Firstly, reform of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. This sounds like a very dry, 'financy' department type of issue but let me tell you that the defence industry—
Mr Keogh interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Burt is now warned!
Ms PRICE: participants in Australia understand how important it is that when Defence now is considering procurement decisions they will consider Australian industry content, they will consider sovereign industrial capability and they will consider workforce issues and skilling issues. So, this is incredibly important to the Australian defence industry, and industry has welcomed these changes. Secondly, we have delivered an independent ARC audit program so that we now will be able to audit companies on their ARC obligations. This means that if they do not comply they are less likely to get more work from this Australian government with respect to defence industry. Thirdly, we have finalised our enhanced ARC contractual framework. This makes sure that small and medium-sized Australian defence industries are front and centre when it comes to making defence program decisions in our nation.
Just to illustrate the defence industry capability of our nation: today, with the Minister for Defence, we will proudly announce that Collins Aerospace Australia has delivered its 1,000th infrared imagery capability for the global F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. This is a huge achievement, and we proudly were able to contribute $1 million to a grant program to assist them with this work. We're very proud of our contribution to the F-35 global program—$1.7 billion worth of Australian contracts. Some 50 Australian contractors are involved in the Joint Strike Fighter program, which is supporting some 2,500 Australian jobs.
Every day, we're thinking about what the barriers are to small and medium-sized defence companies in Australia and, one by one, we are knocking them down to make sure those companies are at the centre of our decision-making, supporting Australian jobs. More importantly, we are creating more jobs.
COVID-19: Aged Care
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (14:50): My question is to the Prime Minister. This is from Jayne, speaking about the moment she was told her father had died from COVID-19, in aged care: 'I started crying and I said, "Why didn't anyone call? Why didn't anyone call? I've been ringing and ringing." And they said, "Oh, he was fine this morning and he was fine this afternoon, but when I checked on him he'd passed away.' Prime Minister, why are aged-care residents and their families not getting the support and information that they need and that they deserve?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:51): I thank the member for his question. It was Jayne that you referred to. I'd be very grateful if you could let me know what facility you're referring to. I'm happy to provide a further response to the response I'll give now, but it's difficult to do that without knowing what facility you're referring to. I appreciate it might be for privacy reasons that you wouldn't want to raise that in this forum, and so I'd be happy for you to raise that through to the Minister for Health, in terms of his responsibilities in this House, and we can provide a further response.
One of the key lessons out of the Newmarch report was the provision of communications, and I want to thank particularly the member for Lindsay—I don't think she's rostered to be in the chamber today. That was one of the issues that she worked closely on in dealing with that issue at Newmarch. That is why, as part of our response across all the acutely affected facilities in aged care in Victoria, there was additional funding and support provided for Services Australia to provide the process for having outward calls to people and to all the families, to give them a daily update, because it wasn't just the aged-care workforce on the nursing side that was depleted in a number of these cases, but the support teams in the administrative areas were also affected. That's why the Services Australia support was put in, to make sure that these outward calls were occurring, and there are many facilities where that was done. That's why I'm keen to know in which facility you're saying that this took place so we can follow that matter up.
With all the 457 deaths that have occurred, with the passing of any loved one, even in better times, these are very difficult issues for any family to deal with, so I pass on my condolences to Jayne and her family, and we will look specifically at the issue that you've raised. We'll be pleased to take that up and come back to you.
COVID-19: Digital Economy
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (14:53): My question is to the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is supporting the road to recovery through the pandemic through its ongoing investment in the digital economy?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (14:53): I thank the member for Wentworth, who has very distinctive expertise when it comes to the digital economy, including from his time, including from his time as Australia's Ambassador to Israel, a country with remarkable achievements when it comes to the digital economy, a country from which we can learn much but a country against which we can in many ways compare very favourably as well.
The platform for our digital economy is the National Broadband Network, and 99 per cent of premises around the country are now able to connect—11.7 million premises. There are 7.4 million that are connected. That number is up 31 per cent in just one year. Around 30,000 a week are connecting to the NBN. Every two weeks, we are connecting more people to the NBN than were connected to the fixed-line network in the entire six years that Labor were in power. We're also seeing a huge rise in the amount of data being carried over the NBN—297 gigabytes a month in June 2020, up from 27 gigabytes just eight years before. It is an extraordinary increase in the amount of data. Over two-thirds of Australians on the NBN are now getting a speed of 50 megabits per second or higher. Of course, the prices are coming down. From 2014-15 to 2018-19 the price of the 50-megabit-per-second plan came down by 37 per cent, according to the ACCC.
This is delivering real efficiencies to small businesses—cheaper and more widely available broadband that lets small businesses use the latest software delivered over the cloud, that lets them serve a bigger addressable market and that gives people more choice in where to locate their business. Businesses like Power Creative, a video-content production company in Blacktown, use the NBN with cutting-edge software so that their clients can view and comment on their content in real time, as it's being edited. David and Erin Power credit the NBN with helping them to expand their business. Of course, we're already preparing for the growth of 5G with an auction of spectrum coming up next year.
The NBN is key to our nation's economic recovery. Just imagine if we were still back in Labor's NBN, with barely over 50,000 premises after six years. It was like the Soviet five-year plans exhorting the comrades to increase their tractor production, but the fact is they missed their 2013 target by 80 per cent. They missed it by 80 per cent: no order of the Soviet revolution for the current Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister for broadband! He missed the targets hopelessly. We're delivering, and it's a platform for the growth of our digital economy and the way out of this current economic downturn.
COVID-19: Aged Care
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (14:56): My question is to the Prime Minister. One hundred metres from where I ask this question in the heart of my electorate is Baptcare Wyndham Lodge. Prime Minister, how many residents at this facility have died from the COVID outbreak? Does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for his failure, which left all aged-care residents more vulnerable to the deadly COVID virus?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:57): I thank the member for her question. There have been 10 deaths at the Baptcare Wyndham Lodge. There are 80 residents that have tested positive for COVID-19 and 86 staff. I understand that the number of residents currently in hospital is four.
This was one of those very significantly affected facilities that I referred to in answers last week. Baptcare Wyndham Lodge notified the Department of Health that it had a positive case on 16 July. The Department of Health tailored specific support as soon as this notification occurred. Testing of residents and staff commenced at Wyndham Lodge on 18 July. The Australian government provided a range of surge staff, including through the National Aged Care Emergency Response teams, from 24 July, including a clinical first-responder nurse. Australian medical assistance teams also provided onsite advice to the service regarding deep cleaning, infection control, cohorting of residents and safe waste management. An independent adviser has been appointed to Baptcare Wyndham Lodge. These are the responsibilities that we have and, as I've said and apologised for previously to those families and the residents of the most affected, there were four in particular that were acutely affected with unacceptable outcomes. As difficult as that has been, our concern was, frankly, that with the rate of COVID infection that was occurring in the community in Victoria this might have spread to many more facilities. As we've seen overseas, in the United Kingdom some 56 per cent of facilities have had COVID infections amongst staff and residents. In Australia that figure is eight per cent.
What has occurred at Baptcare Wyndham Lodge is very, very concerning and very, very troubling, but I've set out the actions that the government has taken in relation to that. To the families of those 10 Australians who passed away as a result of COVID-19 I extend my sincere condolences.
COVID-19: Agriculture
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:59): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government is supporting the road to recovery from the economic effects of the pandemic through its investment in agricultural research?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (14:59): I thank the member for Flynn for his question and acknowledge the rich contribution that Flynn makes, not only in the agricultural sector but also in the resources sector, towards our nation's economy and towards reaching the ambitious agricultural goal of $100 billion by 2030. One of the biggest investments the government can make to agriculture achieving that is in our most precious resources, our human capital. The government is working closely with our research and development corporations—15 research and development corporations—to help achieve that $100 billion goal by 2030. Each year, government, industry, and levy payers contribute over $1.1 billion towards research and development to make sure that we are giving our farmers the tools of the 21st century, with cutting-edge science and technology that allow them to get the production and profitability targets that we are looking for to make this $100 billion industry.
I'm pleased to say that the innovation modernisation program that I announced in 2019 after the EY review is well underway, and we are working with those 15 RDCs, getting back to our core principles of making sure there is money available to the levy payer and taxpayer, making sure that there isn't duplication of research. With those 15 RDCs we are seeing cross-sectoral research being undertaken by four or five of them—that's not an efficient use of taxpayers' or levy payers' money. We're also working through ensuring there is better collaboration and commercialisation of the research. A failure in one RDC may be a success in another. We are creating a growAG website, which will make sure there is coordination and accountability and transparency back to the levy payer to make sure that everyone understands exactly where their levy dollar is going.
We're also undertaking what the states have let us down on—the extension and adoption work. The states have walked away from this. I'm pleased to say the Prime Minister and I have announced a further $86 million for eight new research and development hubs out in the regions, out amongst the farmers, the ones whom we want to adopt the new technology and the science to be able to get them to be more productive, to support regional and rural Australia. We'll intertwine that with the drought research hub so that there isn't any overhang or waste of taxpayers' money. This is a practical step, a practical investment in research and development in our primary production systems.
In that EY report we were labelled No. 20 in the world for research and development. The United States and the Netherlands are ranked fourth and sixth in the world and have the same number of researchers that we do in Australia. I have challenged our RDCs that, by 2030, we can reach No. 1, with the investment we continue to put in. This can become another pillar of agriculture, to reach that $100 billion, the new jobs of agriculture, to bring our young people home to agriculture—in the smarts of agriculture. This is an investment not just in agriculture but also in regional and rural Australia.
COVID-19: Aged Care
COVID-19: Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:02): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the Prime Minister spending his time fighting with state premiers instead of fixing an aged-care system that is in crisis and an economy that's in recession for the first time in 30 years?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:02): Throughout this COVID-19 pandemic, states and territories, together with the Commonwealth, have been able to put Australia in a position where, when you look at the international comparisons, Australia has fared well compared to almost any other developed nation in the world, not only when it comes to health outcomes but also when it comes to economic outcomes. The responses that have been put in place, led by the Commonwealth, include over $300 billion of support. I note a report by the Australian National University found that, in the absence of those policy interventions, the number of people in poverty would have increased from 1.6 million to 3.8 million. So, in the research done by the ANU, 2.2 million people have been identified as having been saved from poverty as a result of the responses we have put in place.
Across the states and territories we have worked together as a national cabinet to achieve many things. There have been some areas of disagreement—I grant you that—but, compared to the way the states and territories and the Commonwealth would argue under COAG, where issues went largely to retire rather than to be promoted, the national cabinet has gone the other way, whether it's the achievements we've been able to make on the EBPC Act in reducing regulation, particularly the Western Australian government working with the Commonwealth government; the billion dollars in the skills funding agreement, which will see 340,000 additional training places put in place; the national freight code or, indeed, the agricultural code, which will be considered by the national cabinet; or the occupational licensing agreements that have been put together. We will continue to work together on these important issues.
But what is really important now, as we go forward, is there is no dispute from the Commonwealth about the powers that the states and territories have in relation to borders. There is no dispute about those powers. It is also the point that what we want to be able to achieve together is the road back for our economy, to ensure that we can see the jobs continue to come back in our economy, whether it's in New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania or anywhere else. Just as the national cabinet worked together to put the three-step plan in place, which was overwhelmed by the resurgence of the virus in Victoria, we will build that plan again. We will, together, get the road back. We will continue to outline those plans, together with the states and territories, on how the economy can open up again, because that must be our goal. We can't retreat. We must always go forward when it comes to battling this virus, and that is what the Commonwealth government is doing, in partnership with the states and territories.
Energy
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (15:06): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government's gas plan will support the road to recovery from the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic by delivering the affordable and reliable energy that Australian's rely on?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (15:06): I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. He's focused, like all of us on this side of the House, on affordable, reliable energy and gas, working for all Australians. As someone with 20 years experience in business, he knows the important role gas plays in the economy. He knows that the path out of COVID includes affordable, reliable gas driving jobs, driving investment and driving the economy. Gas is important for affordable, reliable electricity. It plays that role. But that's less than half of the use of gas. The other use is as an industrial feedstock, a chemical feedstock. We just heard the minister for agriculture talk about a $100 billion agriculture industry. That can't be achieved without large growth in nitrogen fertiliser, and that is made from gas.
Even before the pandemic hit, we were seeing substantial reductions in the wholesale price of gas—a 42 per cent reduction. That was confirmed recently by the AER, who said, 'We are now seeing wholesale gas prices at the lowest levels we've seen for years.' That's helping to drive down wholesale electricity prices—a 42 per cent reduction in wholesale electricity prices before the pandemic hit. That means that all Australians will benefit from a gas fired recovery.
Gas provides flexible, reliable energy that is a complement to solar and wind. We saw record levels of investment in renewables in 2019. The Clean Energy Regulator tells us that we'll see similar levels this year. Last year, we saw $9 billion of investment in solar and wind. But, for the renewables sector to continue to grow, the grid must be balanced. We know that gas is the perfect partner to intermittent renewables. The Chief Scientist has said as much. Far from competing with renewables, it complements them. It complements them by helping to stabilise the grid, reduce emissions and drive lower prices. That's why we've recently introduced to this place the $1 billion Grid Reliability Fund, focused on dispatchable generation and transmission.
There are many who agree with us. I mentioned, just a moment ago, the Chief Scientist, who agrees on the complementary role of gas with renewables. The member for Hunter agrees. Just last week, he said, 'We will need more gas,' like the Narrabri project in New South Wales—1,300 jobs and more than half of New South Wales's gas requirements. Unlike those opposite, when it comes to gas, we know where we stand: reliable energy, lower prices and lower emissions.
Aged Care
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (15:09): My question is to the Prime Minister. The commissioners presiding over the aged-care royal commission have said:
Had the Australian Government acted upon previous reviews of aged care, the persistent problems in aged care would have been known much earlier and the suffering of many people could have been avoided.
Why is the Prime Minister refusing to take responsibility for the avoidable suffering and death which his failures have caused?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:10): I have already said on numerous occasions in this place the responsibility that we've taken and the apologies, which have been absolutely necessary.
This is what we've announced since the royal commission was called—when I called that royal commission: $3 billion since the 2018-19 budget into home-care packages; 14,275 new residential care places, including 13½ thousand residential places and 775 short-term restorative care places; $5.3 billion from 1 July 2020 to June 2022 for existing Commonwealth Home Support Program service providers to ensure continuity of in-home support services for over 840,000 older Australians across Australia; $21.9 million for My Aged Care operating costs; a $320 million boost to residential care subsidies; giving service providers operating in residential home care to independent business advisory services—all programs going forward into the future, I note; almost $50 billion for a Business Improvement Fund to assist residential care providers in financial difficulty; a 30 per cent increase to the viability supplement to support services in rural and remote Australia; a 30 per cent increase to the homelessness supplement; established a new independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission; implemented new consumer focused Aged Care Quality Standards; introduced a mandatory National Quality Indicator Program; put in place a new single Charter of Aged Care Rights; provided $5.6 million to implement phase 1 of the home care compliance framework; implemented new provider requirements to minimise physical and chemical restraint in aged care; and $25.5 million to improve medication management, noting that this may also assist to reduce the use of chemical and physical restraints.
I note all of these measures, and there are many more. I know they've all been done with the support of those opposite—I understand that in most cases, if not all cases. These are the actions which we continue to take since the royal commission was only announced. That demonstrates that the government will continue to take action each and every day, as we indeed have again today, with over half a billion dollars to further extend the COVID-19 supplementary arrangements for aged-care support, to ensure that those facilities are supported both on a viability basis—and when I say 'viability basis', to ensure they have the additional resources to provide the COVID support in those facilities—and also the workforce supports to retain that workforce, which is so necessary. We are investing more than a billion dollars extra a year in aged care every single year.
I return to the point I made earlier today, and that is that at the last election, when we set out our aged-care plan, when we set out the aged-care in-home places, in particular, policies in aged care that we thought were necessary to address the additional demands, they were supported by the Labor Party at that election and they did not offer one extra cent and they did not suggest one extra place in any home-based care at that election. (Time expired)
Regional Australia: Health Care
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (15:13): My question is to the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison-McCormick government is investing in the health of regional Australians during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond?
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (15:13): I thank the member for Mallee for her question. Like me, she understands that this government backs regional Australia.
The regions have handled this coronavirus pandemic very well. We've had some outbreaks, but those have largely been managed quite well. And so the future for regional Australia is strong. Only last Friday at the summit in Cooma, the Regional Australia Institute recognised that there are 40,000 job vacancies in regional Australia now.
But we also have a plan to manage COVID in the regions. It's important to note that many of the 140 GP-led respiratory clinics around Australia are in the regions. The member for Mallee has actually been very active in her electorate, as have many other members right across the House, in identifying the role that these clinics have in testing and keeping up-to-date with the information that's required.
We understand that, in some cases, more unwell patients will need to be moved to other areas. That's why we've upgraded the retrieval capacity of the Royal Flying Doctor Service and CareFlight, with an injection of another $52 million there, so that we can remove those people. There is the $74 million rural health package. Probably the success story has been telehealth. As we speak today, there have been 27 million consultations by 10 million Australians on telehealth—so, for a policy that was developed very quickly, it's been very effective. In more remote areas the $5.8 million for point-of-care testing in remote and Indigenous communities under the leadership of the minister has also kept those communities safe.
I'd like to give a shout-out today to the rural health stakeholders. I've been meeting with them since February on a regular basis—all the peak bodies from the Rural Doctors Association, the RACGP, the AMA, pharmacies, allied health and Indigenous health—and that's been a vital tool for them to pass on information, on behalf of their members, to the government so that we can react and respond in a timely fashion.
Regional Australia is showing very strong tendencies for the future. That's why this government has invested $550 million in the rural health strategy. Since 2018 we have seen 800 nurses and 900 doctors added to the rural workforce because of these programs. Regional Australia is the future. (Time expired)
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 4 of 2020-21
The SPEAKER (15:16): I present the Auditor-General's Performance Audit report No. 4 of 2020-21 entitled Establishment and use of ICT related procurement panels and arrangements: across entities.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:17): 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.
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:17): by leave—I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Eden-Monaro making a statement immediately and that the Member speak without limitation of time.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member for Eden-Monaro, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech and I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (15:18): I rise today with great ambition for the people of Eden-Monaro, determined to make a difference in the lives of the people I now represent. So I will start by thanking them for electing me to this place. I won't let you down.
I invite those here to listen for opportunities to work together to build vibrant, happy and prosperous regional communities. No one person has all the answers, but together, united, we are a powerful force. There is much to do, and I will work with anyone willing to ensure the best for the people of Eden-Monaro.
I speak at a momentous time for Australia and the people of Eden-Monaro. We are rebuilding from the most damaging fires Australia has ever seen, battling a once-in-a-century pandemic and enduring Australia's first economic recession in 30 years. And we face a climate in crisis, including years of devastating drought. And yet, despite these enormous challenges, I've never been more optimistic about our future. I'm optimistic because I know that our communities are home to hardworking and resilient people—people that have moved this nation forward with each passing generation.
I'm lucky to live in one of the most naturally stunning electorates in the country, the mighty Eden-Monaro. From the top of Australia, Mount Kosciuszko and the Snowy Mountains, to the rolling green hills of Tumut and Tumbarumba; from the sapphire waters of the far South Coast to the rocky plains of the Monaro; from the suburbs of Queanbeyan to the vineyards of Murrumbateman, we are proud to call Eden-Monaro our home.
I want to pay tribute to and thank the traditional custodians of the lands and waters of this place I call home—the Ngunawal, Wiradjuri, Ngarigo and Yuin peoples. I recognise their continuing connection to the land, waters and people, and pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. Leaders at every level need to go beyond voicing our respect, though. True respect comes with an active and attentive head, heart and hands. Our Indigenous sisters and brothers have walked this land for over 60,000 years. Their connection is rich and deep, something we all need to spend more time understanding and respecting. Our shared history needs to be told in its absolute truth—a history laid bare for our children to know, a history that needs to be acknowledged—so that we can shape the connections and relationships we all want and need for a better future.
There are stories in our history that point to what is possible—that point to a trust and goodness across all cultures. One such story has its roots in Yuin country, on the far South Coast of New South Wales in my electorate. Historian Mark McKenna, from the University of Sydney, tells the story of 17 shipwrecked sailors from Sydney Cove who, in 1797, walked from the southern tip of mainland Australia to Port Jackson. One of the leaders, William Clark, kept a diary. His great fear along the way was encounters with what he referred to as 'hostile savages'. His experience with our First Nations people could not have been more different. After almost two weeks of walking, backed by the hospitality of the Gunai people in East Gippsland, the sailors reached the Nadgee River, just over the Victorian border in Eden-Monaro, home to the Thawa people of the Yuin nation. According to Dr McKenna, this is where they made what Clark calls 'friends'. The Thawa people walked with the struggling sailors all the way to Pambula, showing the sailors the way, feeding them and helping build rafts for river crossings. Not all the shipwrecked sailors made it to Sydney. Clark was one of three who did. Clark reported to the then New South Wales governor, John Hunter, that the group only survived because of the help of Aboriginal people along the way, or, as Dr McKenna puts it, 'a succession of guardian angels'.
This story epitomises the values of cooperation and respect that we need to continue striving for every single day. Our Indigenous leaders are showing us the way, asking those who gather here to enshrine a voice for our First Nations people in the Constitution, acknowledging their ongoing and everlasting connection to this country. For my part, I will look to establish a group of elders or endorsed representatives from the Ngunawal, Wiradjuri, Ngarigo and Yuin nations across the Eden-Monaro electorate whom I will consult and meet with, drawing on their wisdom as my service grows.
I'm here today because a great servant of our nation and of Eden-Monaro retired. I want to thank Mike Kelly for his nearly four terms as our local member. Both literally and figuratively, I have big shoes to fill in following Mike. I wish Mike, Shelley and Ben all the best for their future.
The opportunity to stand for Labor and be a representative in this House follows some of the darkest and hardest days my family and the many I now represent have ever faced. In the days heading towards last Christmas, I was excited to be spending some time with my young family. My youngest boy had just finished preschool and would be heading to 'big school' with his brother and sister in 2020. Some precious time with my fast-growing kids, on the back of what had been a big, busy year for my husband and me—simple downtime together in our beautiful coastal backyard—was everything we wanted for last summer. The fires that followed, now burnt into our history books, landscape and community, changed everything.
In the final weeks of 2019, fire was already widespread across New South Wales and was on the move. The Currowan and North Black Range fires were destroying homes, infrastructure and landscapes, from Braidwood and Bungendore to the Eurobodalla. Our crippling drought, the changing climate and the obvious danger we were all in had every community in Eden-Monaro under pressure.
The full potential of this dangerous mix was unleashed in the middle of the night on the last day of the year. The people who saw a firestorm unleash itself upon homes and farms west of Cobargo on New Year's Eve speak of it as an angry spirit or a wild animal that couldn't be tamed. We lost lives and homes on that night, as we did on a number of days and nights that followed. Indeed, Eden-Monaro was on fire for the next seven weeks as fires moved in and out of places like Pericoe, Batlow, Colinton and Devils Hole.
The true character of these communities was revealed on those days of black and orange skies. People stepped up and they stepped out to assist anyone who needed help. Evacuation and relief centres at places like Tumut, Narooma and Merimbula became life rafts manned by heroes from all walks of life. What guided that work during those days of uncertainty and fear was a deep commitment to each other, a sense of goodness and a sense of what needed to be done.
The communities of Eden-Monaro can be very proud of what they've achieved together so far. We need to use those values to reshape our future based on the lessons that we've learnt along the way. The soaking rain we've had over the last few months cannot be allowed to dampen or delay the work and change that still needs to take place.
The horrors of those days throughout December, January and February—days where the sun didn't seem to rise—are still very real and very fresh in minds. Friends and family wake up with deep and lasting trauma. Tears are still flowing today, and nightmares still wake us at night.
Knowing what to do and how to respond on a personal, professional and political level has not been clear or easy. But I am here to supercharge the response to bushfire recovery, to fight for each and every one of the thousands of people affected by the fire last summer. There are lives, jobs and businesses that need hope in their future again, and people and places who need to see and feel action that moves us all to a more secure, locally-led future.
In the blink of an eye, our dependence on supply chains located a long way north, south and west was exposed. Fuel ran out, supermarkets were empty, stock were without feed, and power and communication were impossible for many. Regional infrastructure needs to be more robust and resilient—our lives and our livelihoods depend on it. This is not just about safety. It's also about local jobs. We need to broaden the capacity of regional communities by investing in key communication infrastructure, ensuring our networks are up to scratch to attract families and professionals to the regions.
Our economic drivers, the foundations of regional livelihoods, have been hit hard. There is not a person, business or industry that hasn't been impacted by our black summer. Asking 80,000 tourists to leave the Bega Valley at the height of our tourist season is something I will never forget. And, because of coronavirus, the impacts across Eden-Monaro are now deeper and they are hurting harder. An environmental crisis driven by climate change has rolled into a health crisis and now an economic crisis. We need our leaders to come together now more than ever. And the recommendations of this royal commission need to be implemented and not ignored. Let me be clear: the partisan politics of the last decade or more just won't cut it into the future. A reset button has been pushed. We need to work together—that's what people expect.
Speaking to scared and frightened faces, in groups large and small, during this time reinforced to me the importance of leadership. Local leadership matters, especially in our darkest of days. Leaders show up. Leaders walk with their communities. Leaders are motivated by what they see and feel, and they look to drive action for betterment and change. That’s why I'm here—and that is why I'm part of the Labor Party that Anthony Albanese leads.
I stood for Eden-Monaro because I believe we need to do politics differently. In my role as a local councillor and mayor, I worked hard to reach across the aisle to find common cause with other local members in the region and with other levels of government. I did the same in my years as a lawyer before that—advocating and fighting for solutions so that no-one is left behind.
And solutions are what we need right now. The impacts of climate change are writ large across the Eden-Monaro landscape—from the bare, black forests at the back of Tilba Tilba, to the spoilt grapes of Murrumbateman, to the empty campsites at Tathra and to the not-always-snowy Snowy Mountains. And who can forget the choking smoke that hung in our sky and lungs for days on end. Action on climate change is long overdue—and you don’t need to travel far from this chamber to see firsthand the impacts of that failed leadership. It is time for the Morrison government to listen to scientists, industry, experts and Labor, and finally commit to net zero emissions by 2050. We need a recovery plan that will deliver jobs and growth based on the opportunities that flow from action on climate change.
Our response to the needs of our environment will create the jobs and economic opportunities we need for the future—a future where no worker, especially those worried by talk of climate action, is left behind or forgotten. As I travel the towns and villages of Eden Monaro, people talk of the jobs that once existed in regional towns and the jobs that we need again in the future—the land managers that work in our forests, national parks, farmlands and estuaries. A pile-on of cuts and centralisation of decision-making over many years has eroded core jobs in regional communities.
This summer we saw what happens when we turn our back on the responsibilities that come with living in a natural environment. Ultimately decisions were centralised, local knowledge and decision-making was lost—and the pay packets that go with those women and men were stripped out of regional communities.
We now rise to the challenges of a global pandemic. Many in my community are carrying a great weight at the moment, a weight already made heavy by drought and natural disaster. People and places are hurting. But as I heard in Batlow, Tumut and Yass earlier this month, local communities are planning for renewal rather than recovery. They are seeing the opportunity that comes from adversity, and they wake each morning with a spark that inspires action. I now stand with those local leaders, ready to make sure the voices of our community are heard here in Canberra. I will be banging down the doors of decision-makers to ensure Eden-Monaro is not left behind or forgotten following the disasters of 2020.
We need a plan for our future, a plan for jobs, a plan to reinvigorate regional towns and a plan that centres on hope and positivity. Work on that has started, in collaboration with local communities and other levels of government, and I look forward to sharing those stories with the House.
Before I sit down, I want to reflect on the people and experiences that have shaped and supported me in my life. I have lived in regional Australia for most of my life. I love the way of life it affords me: the ability to strike up a conversation with anyone at the local pub, the way that sporting or service clubs become part of your extended family, the way that other parents look out for your children if you’re running late—and that happens often!—and the way that people wave to you as you drive by.
The fact that I now get to represent this amazing electorate in parliament is testament to how our regions operate. I’m not from the political class. I’m here to relentlessly pursue better outcomes for our children so that they don’t have to leave for the city seeking work and fulfilment. I fought for these outcomes when I became the youngest person ever elected to the Bega Valley Shire Council. In my second term, I went on to be only the second female mayor of the Bega Valley. It is an honour and a privilege to be the member for Eden-Monaro and even more so to be the first female member for Eden-Monaro.
Looking around this chamber now, I couldn't be prouder to be part of the Australian Labor Party, a party that takes equal and diverse representation seriously. Our party has a mix of gender, age, religion and cultural backgrounds, and we must continue to encourage more diversity to the party and parliament.
I want to thank the Labor Party—Labor family now—and the many volunteers who have helped during the campaign. An army of members and supporters rallied to get me across the line. You can rightly claim credit for your role in our win—people like Marlene at Wamboin; Judith at Yass; James, Bill and Ezma at Queanbeyan; Leanne at Jindabyne; Sharon at Fish Pen; Jim at Narooma; Joe at Bombala; Col at Batlow; and Mark at Captains Flat. You and those like you—and there are far too many to mention, people who hold Labor values dear—braved snow, icy winds and coronavirus to get us across the line. Your time and energy fills my tank, so thank you very much.
To our leader, the member for Grayndler, Anthony Albanese: he took a gamble on me when he asked me to run in this by-election, knowing we were in the middle of a pandemic, knowing this would be an uphill battle. But he simply said he knew it was the right thing to do and that I was the right person for the challenge. Thank you for the trust you have placed in me to do this job. Thank you also to Paul Erickson and Bob Nanva.
To a mentor who has always shown great faith in me and pushed me to do more and to be more: thank you, Kate Lundy. You have been such a terrific sounding board over the years, and I am lucky to call you my friend.
To two great Labor leaders that I've never met: firstly, to Kim Beazley. You, sir, are the embodiment of a statesman, someone who commands a room and all the attention in it. You invigorated me to join the Labor Party in university. I look to follow your example of intellect, dignity and warmth in public service. Secondly, to Julia Gillard: thank you for being the first. I knew it was significant at the time, and I know it even more now. We share a desire to stand up for what is right each and every time, a desire to bring the conversation back to the people we serve and the advancement of women in leadership.
To my squad—I shouldn't have looked up! To my friends from Eden Marine High School, the University of Canberra, the mum's groups and the workplaces along the way: thank you for your support and friendship.
To my family: as a child, I never asked my parents or my family how they voted—it's not really one of the things you talk about! I've always just known that we were a Labor family, a family that works hard for everything we have and has had nothing handed to us easily. It was instilled in me from a young age that nothing comes free in life and you create your own luck.
My dad was in a union his entire working life. To him it was a no-brainer—'united we stand' to achieve the best for each other, from his early days with state owned energy corporations to his last job with Bega Cheese. My mum finished her working life as an aged-care worker, and she too was a union member. My grandad was a union delegate for most of his life with Victorian Rail; my gar was a member of a union in his early days with the Australian Paper Mill; and my uncle, who worked there too, was a union representative for the mill and later a state delegate for the pulp and paper industry. It strikes me how important it is not only to have industry in our regions but also to make sure those workers are fairly represented by unions to make sure those jobs stay in our regions. I want to thank the union movement for its enduring commitment to workers. It's needed now more than ever before.
My parents never finished high school, but the one thing I always knew, without question, was that my parents would do anything for their children to get ahead. My dad completed a plumbing and gas-fitting apprenticeship before working as a dredge driver at the State Electricity Commission at Loy Yang. My mum worked in retail after leaving school with a dream of owning her own business, and when the Popes settled in Merimbula my parents ran a sports store for 11 years. They would love to have been here today but have had to travel to Victoria to be with my Nanny Hobby, who is moving towards the end of her journey with dementia. Nanny Hobby is one of the hundreds of thousands of Australians who deserve better from our current aged-care system.
My siblings and I are close, inspired by the example of our parents Kaye and Glenn. My older sister, Narelle, who's in Victoria and can't be here either, and younger brother, Michael, talk regularly, arguing along the way but more so supporting and celebrating each other's lives and our young families. My nieces are like my own children, and I love them fiercely. Rhylee, Charli and Franki are each smart, independent and cheeky—just like their mums and dads.
My parents made sacrifices to make sure all of us kids could excel in whatever we chose to do. I was the first in my family to attend university, and my parents supported me when I first moved to Canberra. My dad would cook meals and freeze them for me to take home after each visit to break up the baked beans—the only thing I could cook. And my brother gave me his old car so that I'd have a more reliable form of transport when I was at uni. I worked three jobs to pay my rent, buy food and get by, but my parents were always only a phone call away.
My husband's family is just as special and important. Brad's parents, Judy and Graham, are like mine—family first. They are always there to help whenever we ask. Brad's brothers, Ian and Matt, are among his closest mates and, having known them now for much of my life, they are as much my brothers as they are his. Their kids Hamish, Beverley and August are all firecrackers, and I love them like my own—smart, thoughtful, with a dash of attitude.
It's true I met my husband in high school—on the school bus actually. He tells me that he knew he'd marry me from the moment we met and, well, I like the way he says it, so I never really question it. Brad is my biggest supporter. He's my centre, my calming voice, my cheerleader and my best friend. And I've found out more recently: he has great insight on this political game we play. He certainly has the measure of those opposite! Thanks for pushing me to take this journey, thanks for picking up the slack when I'm away and thanks in advance for learning to cook more meals!
Brad and I have three extraordinary children together—Ruby, Max and Jack—each with the same set of genes, raised in the same manner, but each with very different personalities. They are the reason I pushed myself to take on this campaign and win, they are the reason I work hard, the reason I want regions to prosper and the reason I will be relentless in pursuing the development of regional Australia.
Like most parents I want them to succeed in life. I want them to get a quality education, have access to good health care, have the ability to work, buy a house, raise a family and build a life wherever they choose. Ruby, my girl: you're sweet—well, sometimes—smart and strong and your laugh is infectious, and I hope it never changes. Maxi: you're exactly like your dad. Your smile lights up the room, and your sensitivity to those around you still astounds me. You nail whatever you put your mind too. And Jacka: you came into the world big and fast, and that's how you live your life. You're loud, you're competitive and you have a wicked sense of humour.
'It's always better when we're together'—it's a line from a Jack Johnson song that played at our wedding and completely sums up our life. But not only that: bringing people together is the legacy I look to build as the member for Eden-Monaro. I vow to advocate for each and every one of you so that together we can achieve a brighter future for your family and mine. Thank you.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Member for Eden-Monaro
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:44): Perhaps it is traditional now that we would all go and give the new member for Eden-Monaro a hug. Let me indicate on behalf of our party and I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister, who was here as well, and others in this chamber that we are giving the new member for Eden-Monaro a giant virtual hug.
BILLS
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020
Second Reading
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:
(1) recognises the importance of Aboriginal land rights for the self-determination First Nations people;
(2)agrees that, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the bill, the right to self-determination entails the entitlement of peoples to have control over their destiny and to be treated respectfully;
(3)notes that the recently introduced restrictions on the use of the Aboriginal flag are unacceptable, heartbreaking and disrespectful to First Nations people; and
(4)calls on the Government to act on matters of importance to First Nations people, including:
(a)do everything in its power to free the flag so that it can be used by all Australians, while also respecting and protecting the rights of Harold Thomas; and
(b)adequately invest in housing and essential services—including access to clean water—for First Nations people living on Native Title land".
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (15:47): Just pursuing where I left off: in January of 2019 the then opposition leader, Bill Shorten, visited Kakadu and announced $220 million in funding to upgrade Kakadu National Park and support the township of Jabiru to transition to a tourism based economy, which was part of the vision of the master plan that I spoke about earlier.
In August of 2019, four parties formally executed a memorandum of understanding on the future of the Jabiru township, with the then Minister for the Environment, the Hon. Sussan Ley, signing the memorandum of understanding on behalf of the Commonwealth. Negotiations were led by the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation, as the architect of the way forward for Jabiru is an Indigenous-led multipurpose town.
In early 2019, the Australian government—the current government—promised $216 million and the Northern Territory government promised $131.5 million, which made a $347.5 million investment over 10 years to upgrade Kakadu National Park and support the transition of the Jabiru township to a tourism services hub. This piece of legislation is important to the Mirarr people and the communities of western Arnhem Land. It's something which we all support. I know the passage of this is very keenly awaited by Mirarr people and the communities of western Arnhem Land. I know the benefits will accrue not only to those communities but to the people of the Northern Territory and Australia as a whole by the development that will take place.
The other issue I want to briefly talk about is the amendments moved by the honourable member for Barton around the issue of the flag. It's important that we understand the significance of the Aboriginal flag to First Nations people in this country, and I'm not sure it, nor its history, is as broadly understood as it should be. The member for Barton spoke about its history and the important work that was done by Harold Thomas, who designed the flag, but the concerns we have now are that this flag is being used by a particular clothing company against the interests of the broader Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. I say that because I'm aware of letters which have been sent. I'm sure that Mr Thomas would not want to think that the flag could not be used or should not be used as a promotional tool for Aboriginal health, for example. Yet, I'm aware that WAM, the company which he's assigned rights to, has been making cease and desist demands of Aboriginal organisations such as health services about the use of the flag.
Many of these organisations, Aboriginal organisations, use clothing as a promotional tool or as an encouragement for First Nations people, for example, to have health checks. Deadly Choices, a product of the Institute for Urban Indigenous Health, is one of those organisations, and it now no longer uses the Aboriginal flag on its clothing because of a cease and desist letter from WAM. We're not talking about a multinational organisation here, or the AFL or the Rugby League. We're talking about Aboriginal community based organisations who see the flag as central to their purpose. What we're saying here is that it's inappropriate and wrong, really, for this company to exercise the rights they have in the way they are doing. I'd implore them to see what's going on here—there's a broader purpose. We indeed need to accept and look after the intellectual property rights and the copyright of Harold Thomas. That does not mean that we have to support the way in which the licence which has been issued to WAM is being utilised. This is a shonky organisation, as was demonstrated by the member for Barton. I support the amendments which the member for Barton has proposed in trying to release the flag for its good and public purpose. (Time expired)
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (15:52): I am very pleased to rise in support of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020 and the amendments moved by the member for Barton in the federal parliament today. To begin, I want to acknowledge the traditional owners of Jabiru, the Mirarr people. It is their vision to transform Jabiru from a mining town to a centre for tourism and service provision within the world-renowned Kakadu National Park that this bill seeks to support.
With the closure of the nearby Ranger uranium mine by January 2021 and the expiry of the existing Jabiru leasing arrangements in June 2021, the Mirarr people have developed a master plan, setting out their vision for Jabiru as:
A world leading ecologically sustainable, economically and socially vibrant community where traditional Aboriginal culture, all people and the natural environment flourishes.
This bill will transfer the ownership of the Jabiru township to the Mirarr people, following the closure of that nearby uranium mine. It will return the township to Aboriginal control—as it should be. The granting of this lease will be fundamental, realising the Mirarr peoples' vision for a post-mining future of this town. It has been a long time coming. The member for Barton's amendment to this bill today, which recognises the importance of self-determination for Aboriginal people, reminds us of just why this change in leasing arrangements now is so critical. The member for Barton has rightly highlighted the impact of the recently introduced restrictions on the Aboriginal flag as being both unacceptable and disrespectful to First Nations people.
Tragically, Aboriginal people are finding themselves unable to use this important cultural symbol because the licensing rights now belong to a private company, WAM Clothing. This is a private, for-profit company founded by a Queensland businessman, Ben Wooster, who is one of two non-Indigenous owners. Mr Wooster's previous business venture was Birubi Art, which last year made history for all the wrong reasons. Now defunct, Birubi Art was found to be misleading consumers and was fined a record $2.3 million for selling thousands of Indonesian-made items as so-called genuine and authentic Aboriginal art. Regretfully, WAM is now strongly enforcing its legal rights by registering 'cease and desist' orders for those who use the Aboriginal flag.
The Australian Aboriginal flag was designed by the Luritja artist Harold Thomas, in 1971. For Newcastle, the Aboriginal flag has always held a special place in our city, flying high above our city hall for more than four decades now. Indeed, Newcastle made history in 1977 as the first town or city in Australia to fly the Aboriginal flag on a civic building, thanks to the vision and tenacity of the trailblazing Labor lord mayor Joy Cummings. In 1995 the Aboriginal flag was recognised by the Australian government as an official flag of Australia, and the Governor-General's proclamation declared it 'to be the flag of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia and to be known as the Australian Aboriginal flag'.
The idea that something so deeply symbolic as an official flag of Australia could be sold or licensed to a private company is profoundly troubling. No other flag of Australia is licensed to a private, for-profit company—a company that, as I've said, is clearly determined to stop the very same people this flag represents from using the Aboriginal flag whenever they want without cost or the need for consent. The recent events that have denied Aboriginal people the right to use their flag are heartbreaking. In 2018 WAM Clothing purchased the exclusive worldwide copyright licence for reproducing the Aboriginal flag for use on clothing, and WAM hasn't been shy about enforcing its legal power, prohibiting Aboriginal people and Aboriginal-owned organisations from any use of the Aboriginal flag on clothing from May 2019 onwards. Queensland's Indigenous Wellbeing Centre, a charitable organisation, was shamefully forced to pay $2,200 in compensation when it used the Aboriginal flag on T-shirts that it then gave away to patients free of charge as an incentive to encourage Aboriginal people to come to the clinic for preventative health checks.
The well-known red, yellow and black flag is steeped in history. It has come to represent the strength, resilience and resistance of First Nations people in Australia. It was first used in a 1971 march for National Aborigines Day, in Adelaide. Soon after, it was taken to Canberra, where it has flown at the Tent Embassy in front of Old Parliament House ever since. The Aboriginal flag was born out of resistance and struggle. It remains a powerful symbol of unity, pride and identity. It defies common sense, not to mention basic morality, that a non-Indigenous business owned and managed by a man with such a shocking record and blatant disregard for Indigenous cultural heritage can own this important national symbol and, essentially, charge Aboriginal people to use it.
This second reading amendment calls on the government to do everything in its power to free the Aboriginal flag so that it can be used by all Australians, while also respecting and protecting the rights of the flag's original designer, Harold Thomas. I couldn't agree more. Flags are important cultural artefacts. They are powerful symbols that can mean many things to many people. They can represent our shared, albeit contested, histories. They help us to understand ourselves and they unite people under a common banner. They shouldn't be owned by anyone, much less a private, for-profit company. The Aboriginal flag is an iconic national symbol that should always be about people and pride, not profit. Twenty-five years ago, this parliament recognised the Aboriginal flag as an official flag of Australia. It should not be beyond us now to free the flag so that First Nations peoples and communities can use the flag whenever they want without cost and without the need for consent. It's now up to the Morrison government to act and to heed the calls of the almost 150,000 Australians who have now signed the online petition to free the Aboriginal flag and restore this important national symbol to public ownership.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (16:00): I rise to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020, and I acknowledge the Mirarr people and the traditional custodians of the land on which I currently stand, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and I pay my respect to their elders past, present and emerging. I would also like to acknowledge the traditional custodians of the electorate of Warringah, the Gayamaygal, the Cammaraygal and the Borogegal, as the first people of Warringah and pay respect to their elders.
This bill amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory Act) 1976 to effect the transfer of ownership of Jabiru township land to the traditional custodians, the Mirarr people. Jabiru township is part of Kakadu National Park and was established in 1981 to service the Ranger Uranium Mine, which will cease operations by January 2021. Negotiations for the return of the town land to the Mirarr traditional owners and the execution of the new township lease are underway. The intent is for the traditional custodians to transition the township to a tourism and service hub. The federal government has announced $216 million in investment over 10 years to upgrade Kakadu National Park, and this bill will assist in the fulfilment of that commitment.
In August 2019, the future of Jabiru memorandum of understanding was signed between the Australian government, the Northern Territory government, Energy Resources of Australia Ltd and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation. The MOU supports the implementation of the Jabiru Masterplan released in July 2018, setting out the vision of the traditional owners for the Jabiru township post mining as a tourism and services hub.
This legislation is important for the economic empowerment of Indigenous Australians. This economic empowerment is essential to improvement in the quality of life and the achievement of Closing the Gap metrics. Empowerment of Indigenous people will also undoubtedly improve the prospects for the preservation of culture and heritage of significant sites. In the recent blasting of the Juukan Gorge, we have seen stark examples of the destruction that can occur when mining companies are given free rein over large tracts of land. Taking empowerment to the next steps through constitutional recognition and the establishment of a voice to parliament is essential to the truth telling that Indigenous Australians demand and deserve.
This particular bill looks exclusively at the arrangements for Jabiru and the handover of the lease from the resources companies to the Mirarr people. The Mirarr people and their representative body have welcomed the legislation as the first step towards the realisation of their vision and master plan for the town and the region. The vision and master plan are centred on a new, sustainable kind of tourism and regional services across the Kakadu region. They're calling for the early release of the federal government's funding so that they can stimulate the economy and commence construction in 2021, making the most of the current shutdown—as difficult as it is. Lack of traffic in Kakadu creates the opportunity of stimulating the construction industry in the Northern Territory.
This legislation is ethical and should serve as a basis for future transition agreements, ensuring economic empowerment of Indigenous communities. It's a stark contrast to the treatment of the traditional owners back in 1977 when the Ranger mine was first established. In 1977, the Ranger inquiry report concluded that the land for the then proposed town should not be granted as Aboriginal land under the newly formed Aboriginal land rights act. It meant that the traditional custodians' power to stop the uranium industry operating on their land was diminished. In 1981 the Director of National Parks and Wildlife granted a 40-year lease to the Jabiru Town Development Authority, who then sublet the site to the owners of the Ranger Uranium Mine. The native title claim over Jabiru was one of the longest-running cases in the Northern Territory and was only settled in 2013.
I have received many requests from constituents in Warringah to push for greater empowerment of Indigenous Australians. Economic empowerment is one step towards that self-determination. I've also received correspondence regarding the devastation that occurred at Juukan Gorge. It's noted that a major shareholder of the Ranger mine is Rio Tinto, also responsible for the destruction of the culturally significant site at Juukan Gorge. It's essential that the land under this agreement is rehabilitated to the standard that the traditional custodians expect. Concerns that the mining company will not have the funds to properly rehabilitate the mine area must not be realised. Traditional custodians have said it is of the utmost importance that the site is properly cleaned up, emphasising that the land contains sacred sites. So I urge the Minister for the Environment to oversee the clean-up effort and ensure that the rehabilitation is completed to the highest standard.
I acknowledge the member for Barton's amendment to this bill, regarding the Free the Flag campaign. I certainly support the conversation about the rights to the Indigenous flag, and I believe that this should in fact be a matter for debate in its own right. I look forward to visiting the realisation of the Mirarr people's vision. I trust that the funds will be released in a timely manner and that the appropriate oversight of the transition, including the rehabilitation, will be undertaken. I encourage greater involvement of the traditional custodians of the land in all aspects of the management of mine sites and the development of a greater degree of respect for our cultural heritage.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (16:07): I'd like to acknowledge that I'm standing on the land of the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nations here in my electorate of Cooper, and I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging. I rise to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020 and to support the amendment moved by my wonderful colleague the member for Barton. I pay my respects to the Mirarr Aboriginal people, who are the traditional owners of the Jabiru township.
As the member for Barton has indicated, Labor will support this bill. It will at last return the ownership of the town of Jabiru to the Mirarr people and allow for a community entity representing the Mirarr to hold a head lease over the town. It is a move long awaited by the Mirarr people and is supported by the Northern Territory land councils, and means that the traditional owners will at last be able to make decisions that uphold their cultural connection to the land.
This is a great outcome for the Mirarr people, who have withstood immense pressure from political and mining industry influences and worked so hard to maintain their own cultural identity and connection to the land. I offer my warmest congratulations to them and wish them all the very best in their endeavours to transform Jabiru from a town focused on mining to one based on the social, cultural and natural resource wealth of the region. As the member for Barton said, Labor stand with them in this hope, as we are committed to greater self-determination for First Nations Australians.
It is important that the House is reminded that it was a Labor government, back in October 2009, which set this course of Mirarr self-determination, with an in-principle agreement for amendments to the land rights act. In January last year Labor committed to a major upgrade of the Kakadu National Park visitor facilities. Undoubtedly, it was the knowledge of that commitment that spurred the Prime Minister to commit similar funding.
My electorate is named after William Cooper, a proud Yorta Yorta man. I am lucky enough to have met his direct descendant—his grandson, Alfred Cooper, known as Uncle Boydie—who came to Melbourne from his own lands to celebrate the electorate's renaming. Uncle Phil Cooper is a friend of mine and a great support to me. He is a great-nephew of William Cooper and resides in my seat, along with his family.
William Cooper was an Aboriginal leader born in Yorta Yorta tribal territory, around the junction of the Murray and Goulburn rivers, who lived from 1861 to 1941. He was a trailblazing activist for Aboriginal rights in the 20th century who spent his life working to advance the rights of our First Nations peoples. He was a skilled and courageous spokesperson who helped establish the Australian Aborigines' League, an organisation that fought for rights for our First Nations Australians. These included land rights, enfranchisement and, topically, direct representation in our parliament. William Cooper forged the establishment of National Aborigines Day, which is now celebrated nationwide as NAIDOC Week. He led the first Aboriginal deputation to a prime minister, to ask for federal control of Aboriginal affairs, in 1938.
He's also famous for standing up for other persecuted groups. Despite his own people's struggles, he led a protest at the German consulate in Melbourne against Nazi persecution of the Jewish community. This has been recognised by Yad Vashem in Jerusalem as the only protest of its kind to have taken place in the world. He collected 1,814 signatures from Aboriginal people all over Australia, and a statue in his home town of Shepparton now honours that legacy. The statue depicts him holding that petition.
William Cooper was also a proud union man, an AWU member who laid the foundation for Indigenous industrial rights today. His legacy has inspired positive social change for First Nations communities in Melbourne and throughout Australia.
He would have been thrilled to know that the Aboriginal community has always been at the heart of the Cooper electorate's identity. Many First Nations peoples live and work in Cooper. That seat that now bears his name is home to many great Aboriginal organisations: the Aborigines Advancement League; the mighty All Stars football team; the Sir Douglas Nicholls Sporting Complex; the Aboriginal voice radio 3KND—that's 'Kool 'N' Deadly'; the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service; the Victorian Child Care Agency; the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association, on campuses of the Federation University; the Victoria Aboriginal Community Services Association, the Aboriginal Catholic Ministry for Victoria; and Yappera Children's Service Co-operative.
It is also the home to the extraordinary Aboriginal owned social enterprise called Spark Health that trades as Clothing The Gap. Laura Thompson is the amazing Aboriginal woman who created the organisation. One hundred per cent of the profits from the sales of their fabulous clothing go to support, educate, advocate for and celebrate black excellence, adding value to Aboriginal people's lives. Their clothing is exemplary and proudly Aboriginal. Like so many Aboriginal organisations, they incorporated the wonderful Aboriginal flag into their designs. Those ubiquitous colours—red, black and yellow—are proudly flown by their products.
In June last year, Clothing The Gap, along with other businesses and NGOs, including several sporting codes, were issued with a cease and desist notice from WAM Clothing for celebrating and displaying the Aboriginal flag on clothing. Currently, WAM Clothing holds an exclusive worldwide licensing agreement with the flag's copyright owner, Harold Thomas, to produce the Aboriginal flag. First Nations leaders and business operators are now expressing their grave concerns about this copyright agreement. The copyright of the Aboriginal flag is valid for Harold Thomas' life plus another 70 years, so potentially we are looking at another 100 years until the rights of the flag enter the public domain. I ask this: should WAM Clothing, a non-Indigenous business, control the market and profit from the resistance, resilience and perseverance of Indigenous people?
Laura and her colleagues started the Free the Flag campaign, and there's a petition that was created by Clothing The Gap. Over 140,000 people have signed the #PrideNotProfit petition, which is calling for a change to the current licensing arrangements around the Aboriginal flag, with the common goal of freeing the flag from copyright. I'm proud to be an advocate for and a supporter of the campaign. I have worked with Laura and others in ensuring that senior Labor politicians are also supporting the campaign, and I was pleased to be able to host Laura and Nova Peris in Canberra so that they could discuss the campaign with parliamentarians.
As the member for Barton has already noted, Australia is made up of many Aboriginal nations, as well as the Torres Strait Islanders, and the Aboriginal flag is the one symbol that unites those nations. And yet we are slowly seeing the flag disappear because of WAM's decision to enforce its licensing rights. The famous red, black and yellow flag was missing from the Sir Doug Nicholls Indigenous round. Instead, we saw a number of AFL teams sporting 'Free the Flag' guernseys at training, as the AFL is no longer able to incorporate the flag into their Dreamtime clothing. Many NGOs, including Aboriginal health bodies, proudly and successfully offer things like T-shirts with the flag on them as an incentive to attend and have health checks. They can no longer afford to do that now.
We hope many more organisations and people will join the protest and make it known that the flag should be able to be flown freely. Labor is now calling on the federal government to do more to protect the Aboriginal flag, which, as some say, is being held hostage. As the member for Barton said in her second reading amendment, the government should do everything in its power to free the flag so that it can be used by all Australians, while still respecting and protecting the rights of Harold Thomas.
Most flags, including the Australian flag, have their copyrights owned by the government and remain in the public domain, free for all to use. In terms of the nation, flags are the most public pieces of public property. Logically, there is an inherent contradiction when the Aboriginal flag is privately owned. Importantly, the government also recognised and proclaimed the Aboriginal flag in 1995, and again in 2018, under the Flags Act. Therefore, there is a legitimate expectation of free use of that flag.
Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians want no more and no fewer rights to the Aboriginal flag than we do to the Australian flag or the Torres Strait Islander flag. I commend the work of Clothing The Gap, Dreamtime Kullilla-Art and each and every organisation and individual who has added their voice to the call to free the flag. In the words of Laura Thompson, 'The flag represented a struggle and a resistance movement, and now it just feels like a struggle to use it.' Next year, in July, the flag will turn 50. Laura wants it freed by then. As the member for Barton has said, 'WAM should do the right thing and give the flag back.' Just because something might be legal does not mean it is right.
In my first speech, I said that the value of solidarity is what will drive me as a politician. I said:
Solidarity is the expression of our shared humanity. It is the importance of not merely reaching out but standing beside. Solidarity is not individual charity but collective empowerment. Solidarity does not subsidise; it does not patronise. It is the fundamental recognition that the greatest human dignity is the experience of opportunity and equality.
Today I stand in solidarity with First Nations peoples in their quest to free the flag.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:18): I rise to speak on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020. To start with, I want to pay my respects to the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional owners of this land here, Canberra. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the Larrakia, who are the custodians of the land that I represent in the far north. I want to acknowledge in particular Richie Fejo, the chair of the Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation; the board; and all the Larrakia families. I am very proud to represent the people who live on the land that they are custodians of.
As you've heard from previous speakers, Labor is supporting this bill, which has been a long time coming for the Mirarr people, who live out around Jabiru, in West Arnhem Land. The effect of this bill will be to return ownership of the township of Jabiru, which services the Ranger Uranium Mine, and allow a community entity representing the Mirarr people to hold a head lease over the town.
Jabiru falls within the realm of the Northern Land Council, and I'm pleased to record the NLC's support for this bill. After the bill was introduced, back in May this year, the NLC noted that it would allow for the transition of the township from a mining town to a regional service centre and tourism hub that would drive economic activity throughout the West Arnhem region. In the lead-up to the last federal election, there was a lot of attention paid to Jabiru, with a lot of funds—over $200 million—slated for upgrades to the park and to Jabiru itself. The only problem was that those opposite, the federal government, said that those funds would be forthcoming over 10 years. I note that the ministers have done a bit of work on the Prime Minister, or at least with the Prime Minister's media office to say that quite a bit of that funding will in fact be in the near future. But we will wait to see whether or not that's going to be the case.
The Mirarr people have withstood immense pressures over the years and just want to see some action. Now, finally, they will have an opportunity to chart their own destiny and to manage their own affairs and also to prosper through their own endeavours. That local decision-making has been strongly supported by the NT government. I welcome the NT Labor government's re-election for four years. That will at least allow, from the NT government's perspective, the honouring of commitments that have been made to those traditional owners so they are able to make more decisions locally and uphold their cultural connection to that land. I really wish the Mirarr people all the very best for the future. We will work to assist them in any way, shape or form. Although Jabiru is part of the member for Lingiari's electorate, should those opposite not act to guarantee two seats for the Northern Territory, Jabiru will become part of the single seat of the Northern Territory. The Mirarr and every nation around the Northern Territory deserve much better than that. I'm sure the minister is having those conversations with the Prime Minister about fair representation for the Northern Territory.
Labor has always been committed to greater self-determination for First Nations Australians. As mentioned, it's really encouraging to see the Northern Territory government continuing on the path that they are to empower more communities. We will see better results as a result.
I heard a call out to the Mirarr people at the TIO Stadium in Darwin last weekend. It was by Ritchie Fejo, the chair of the Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation, welcoming the crowds to Darwin and welcoming everyone watching that game of AFL, the Dreamtime game. He called out to the Mirarr people and called out to First Nations people around our country. It's a great game, that Dreamtime game. In fact, it's one of the biggest events on the AFL calendar. It was marvellous to have it played in Darwin. For those who are not AFL tragics or, should I say, proud supporters, this clash between the Richmond Football Club and the Essendon Football Club was very special to Territorians, and having it at TIO meant that some of the players from those teams were back at their original stomping ground.
In the past, we've seen many Indigenous and non-Indigenous AFL superstars come from the Territory. So the significance of this game, Dreamtime at the 'G, was hard to put into words. But there's a lot of proud heritage in those two AFL teams in particular. To be fair, I'll speak about one from the Essendon side and one of the Richmond side.
From the Richmond side, I'll speak about the Bowden family. I congratulate Joel Bowden on being re-elected as a Labor MLA in the Northern Territory government. His brothers Patrick and Shaun, and their late father, Michael, who has gone to God now, all proudly represented the Tigers, as did Richard Tambling, Troy Taylor and Relton Roberts.
Daniel Rioli was obviously back in the north for the game. I also need to speak about the Essendon players: Dean Rioli, Owen Davies, Shaun Edwards, Richie Cole; and, for Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti, it was a homecoming. Of course, I've left one famous Essendon player from the north until last, and that's Michael Long. Michael Long is a leader, legendary football player and someone who's stood up against racism in our country. As an Indigenous rights advocate, Longy said that it was up to the government, to those opposite, to the minister in the chamber to make a change and stand up for what is right in relation to the Aboriginal flag. He said, 'We just want the Prime Minister and government to intervene and to put it in its rightful place, where it should be.' He's had things to say to other prime ministers in the past too. I joined Michael Long on the highway walking to Canberra in 2004, where he wanted former coalition Prime Minister John Howard to show a bit of love for First Nations people in this country.
In the lead up to the Dreamtime at the 'G game, I spent some time with Michael Long at a school in Darwin. As a proud original Long walker, it was great to answer questions from those kids about the original Long Walk and about the Aboriginal flag. We were joined by another Territory legend, Nova Peris. Nova, an Olympian and former Northern Territory representative in the Senate, spoke about the need for action in relation to freeing the use of the Aboriginal flag. Nova said: 'We're calling on the government to fix it. We're calling on the Governor-General, who proclaimed it in 1995. You've got the power to make the rules, and we just want the Aboriginal flag to have the same rights as the Australian flag. How do you copyright something that represents a race of people? How do you copyright our pride? How do you copyright our history and our values and everything we stand for?'
I just want to give both Michael Long and Nova Peris, a couple of constituents of mine—they are; they live in Darwin—a voice on this issue that we all feel very strongly about. When Richie Fejo welcomed all the First Nations that were present at the ground for the Dreamtime at the 'G match, it was incredibly stirring. What I saw around the AFL ground at Marrara were a lot of Aboriginal flags that were flown with a lot of pride.
It is an important issue where there's a dilemma between individual rights and collective rights. I am very keen to see the agency of Harold Thomas, who owns the copyright, respected, and I am very, very keen to see the government fix this issue so that the rights to use the Aboriginal flag pass into the common domain, because it is valued collectively and it is a great source of pride so many Australians—in particular, the First Australians. But non-Indigenous Australians also see it as a very powerful symbol. So I support the work of the minister. I understand that the minister is in discussions with the copyright owner, Harold Thomas, and he is close to fixing the situation, so I wish him well and say that it's very important that he does so.
These powerful symbols, which is what flags are, are important to the nation. Land rights are important. Self-determination is important. These are critical issues to people who have been, to a large extent, disenfranchised, particularly in the Northern Territory. You might find it pretty hard to believe, Madam Deputy Speaker Wicks, that, in some communities in the Northern Territory, there was a turnout of under 50 per cent at the recent NT elections. We have the lowest enrolment in the country. We have some of the lowest voter turnout in the country.
You may ask yourself, 'Who's got responsibility for getting out to those communities and educating them about the electoral process?' First Nations peoples' place in this country and their ability to vote were fought for strongly, over decades and decades. Who has that role? It turns out that the Australian Electoral Commission has that role. It also turns out that the Australian Electoral Commission used to have a sizeable office in Darwin but, when those opposite got into power, they gutted it. So they sacked the people and sent them to Brisbane and other places away from the Northern Territory—the very people who were to go out and get First Nations people on the roll. That was a deliberate decision by those opposite in their first government, under former Prime Minister Tony Abbott; it was continued by former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and then by the current Prime Minister. So I call on him and those opposite, whilst wishing the minister luck, to start respecting First Nations people in our nation.
Ms Rishworth: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to draw attention to the state of the House.
The bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): A quorum not being present, the sitting will be resumed in five minutes.
Sitting suspended from 16:38 to 16:52
The House having been counted and a quorum being present—
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (16:52): I rise today predominantly to speak on the amendment moved by the member for Barton. Firstly, though, I'd like to adopt the comments by my Labor colleagues on the substance of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020 and note that Labor is supporting the bill. I'm rising to speak on the amendment moved by my colleague because the subject of the ownership of the copyright of the Aboriginal flag is something that should be a concern to all of us, whether we're First Nations people or not.
A number of my colleagues have already spoken about a Victorian Aboriginal owned and led social enterprise called Clothing The Gap. I had hoped to give this speech wearing my Clothing The Gap hoodie, which across its front says 'Fearlessly PROGRESSIVE', but of course, in the way Murphy's law works, today is the only day I didn't wear it when I walked into parliament. Clothing The Gap is a fashion label which is managed by healthcare professionals, and they celebrate Aboriginal people and Aboriginal culture. It is, as I said, an Aboriginal owned and led social enterprise. What Clothing The Gap say on their website is that they 'encourage people to wear their values on their tee'—on their T-shirts, which might explain my 'Fearlessly PROGRESSIVE' hoodie. Clothing The Gap is a self-determining vehicle, working to add years to Aboriginal people's lives. They ask people to buy their sustainable clothing to help 'clothe the gap'. My friend and colleague the member for Cooper has spoken about Clothing The Gap before. It's based in Melbourne, in Preston in her electorate, and last year she tabled a petition that they had started, which continues, about freeing the copyright of the Aboriginal flag. I thought it was important to put more context around what Clothing the Gap are, because they say on their website that they invite and encourage non-Indigenous people to be part of their vision by purchasing clothing and supporting their virtual events. Their website says:
When non-indigenous people purchase Aboriginal designed fashion from an Aboriginal owned business, Aboriginal people feel heard and supported.
Personally, I'm proud to have bought merchandise, including most recently a mask, to be worn in Frankston when I'm outside, in order to ensure that Aboriginal people across my community, across Victoria and across Australia feel heard and supported. That's also why, of course, we want a voice to parliament and to fully implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart. But, until those things happen, for many of us what we can do is stand up in this place and say, 'You are heard; you are supported', and we can buy the clothing.
In June 2019, Clothing the Gap was served a cease and desist notice from WAM Clothing for celebrating their flag—the Aboriginal Flag. They were given three whole working days—three—to sell all of their flag stock or face legal action. Clothing the Gap asked this question: should WAM Clothing, a non-Indigenous business, hold the monopoly in a market to profit off Aboriginal people's identity and love for their flag? Well, 140,000 signatures to their online petition to Free The Flag suggests that there is a significant portion of the Australian public whose answer to that question is no.
We don't allow the copyright of the other two official flags of Australia, the Australian flag and the Torres Strait Islanders flag, to be owned, in the case of the Australian flag, by anyone other than the Commonwealth, or, in the case of the Torres Strait Islanders' flag, by anyone other than the Torres Strait Island Regional Council. Copyright is a complicated business. Of course, Harold Thomas deserves the recognition and what comes from it as the creator of the Aboriginal flag. I can't, as a non-Indigenous person standing in this place, explain the depth of the connection that Aboriginal and First Nations people have with the flag. It's not for me to use the words to try to describe it, but all I can do is listen to what the member for Barton and others have said about how deeply that flag reflects and portrays their love of country and identity and be part of a proud Labor Party and a movement across the country to say, 'We see you and we hear you and we're here to support you.'
My contribution today is to say, 'Clothing the Gap, I'm supporting you as an organisation in the great state of Victoria for Aboriginal people.' I am supporting you and your right to continue to have your flag painted on your walls at Nairm Marr Djambana, our gathering place at Jubilee Park in Frankston, displayed by the people who meet the there, and Indigenous people across this country. My contribution is to say, I am with you on the campaign to Free The Flag and to be able to celebrate your identity.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:58): This bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Jabiru) Bill 2020, amends section 19A of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 to remove the requirement that the initial grant of a township lease by the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust may only be to the Commonwealth and removes the requirement that the term of any lease of the Jabiru town land must be 99 years. The bill also amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to make it clear that, upon the grant of a section 19A lease, any existing rights, titles and interests will not automatically be extended to match the term of the new lease. The bill is strongly supported by the traditional owners of the Jabiru township, the Mirarr people, and the bill provides for the return of the Jabiru township to Aboriginal control through the township lease. That return will help transition the township away from being a mining town and into being a regional services centre and tourism hub that will drive economic activity throughout the West Arnhem region.
Labor is of course supporting this bill, but I do, in speaking in support of the bill, wish to make some comments about the second reading amendment that's been moved by the member for Barton, which I wholeheartedly support. The Aboriginal flag is an important symbol, for the Aboriginal people of Australia, of the fact that they are the oldest continuing culture in the world. The flag symbolises that important connection between Aboriginal people and the country of Australia—their land. The flag has a long history in Australia. It was designed in 1971 by Northern Territory artist Harold Thomas, and in 1972 it was chosen as the official flag for the Aboriginal Embassy at the front of Old Parliament House. On 14 July 1995 the Australian Governor-General proclaimed the Aboriginal flag as 'the flag of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia and to be known as the Australian Aboriginal flag'. At that time, Aboriginal people saw this as their flag, their symbol of their connection with this land dating back tens of thousands of years. In 1997 the Federal Court recognised Harold Thomas as the creator of the Aboriginal flag and granted him copyright.
Often people ask what the status of the Aboriginal flag is. Australia has three national flags, and all of them have the same status. Those flags are, of course, the Australian flag which hangs in this chamber, our national flag; the Aboriginal flag; and the flag of the Torres Strait Islander people. All of those flags are protected under the Flags Act. But the Flags Act does not extinguish copyright, and that's separate from those protections that are granted under the Flags Act. Harold Thomas has the licensing right, and he has exercised that right and given licence to reproduce the flag to three companies. Those three companies have been seeking to enforce those exclusive rights to use the Aboriginal flag, particularly on clothing, by sending 'cease and desist' letters to Aboriginal groups, to sporting codes and to Aboriginal health services.
Many in our community are understandably upset by this, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, who see the flag as a symbol of their enduring connection with this land, a symbol of their Australianness and their connection with Australia, and, understandably, want to proudly display that and tell everyone about that, by either flying the flag, wearing the flag or producing the flag as a symbol of their pride. That has generated a community campaign to free the flag so it can be used by all Australians, but particularly by all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, as a symbol of their pride in the oldest continuing culture in the world and their connection to this country. I believe that that is important, and it's something that the Aboriginal community at La Perouse—proud of their ancestors and their connection with that land at La Perouse and Kamay, or Botany Bay—have said to me is important to them as well. It's on that basis that I am advocating and supporting the second reading amendment that has been moved by the member for Barton—the first Aboriginal woman elected to the House of Representatives in Australia, a proud Aboriginal elder, a person who deserves respect in this place and a person to whom this House of Representatives and this parliament should be listening on this issue.
This campaign has substantial community support. There's a petition that has been running, with over 140,000 signatures from Australians supporting this campaign to free the Aboriginal flag. Through this second reading amendment, Labor is asking the government to work with the rights holders so that the Aboriginal flag design can be used freely by the community in a similar way to the Australian flag, and so that hopefully we are able to reach this consensus and this result before the 50th anniversary of the Aboriginal flag on 12 July next year. I want to make it very clear: I and my Labor colleagues make it very, very clear that we are not seeking to extinguish the copyright rights that Harold Thomas has around the flag. Harold Thomas is the originator of that design, and his rights must be respected. Harold Thomas' rights must be respected. I call on the government to respect those rights and to work with Harold on a permanent solution to the use of the flag design. I have every faith that the minister, who's present in the chamber, certainly has the capability and the willingness to do that.
This isn't a partisan issue. This is an issue that unites Australians around the pride that we have in the fact that we have the oldest continuing culture in the world in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and in the pride that we all have in the communities that we represent in working with the First Australians. First Australians have inhabited these lands and these waterways for tens of thousands of years, and we recognise the Aboriginal flag as a symbol of that pride and as a symbol of that connection with the land and the waterways of Australia. I sincerely hope that this parliament can work together on a solution that respects the rights of Harold Thomas and the rights holders, but, at the same time, frees the Aboriginal flag so that it can be used as a symbol of pride for all Australians.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (17:08): I want to start by acknowledging the traditional owners and elders and the people of Mirarr. Your hopes and aspirations have culminated in today's legislation. I know the journey that you've been on. I listened to the speeches from the other side, and I thought we should have focused purely on your aspirations and your issues.
I know if the member for Lingiari and the member for Isaacs worked for the national land council and were at a meeting with the traditional owners, the traditional owners would have told us off for talking about other matters that were not related to the importance of the principal discussion that would be occurring with them and that the issues that they wanted were about a settlement that would give them an opportunity for a better future—for their children, for their grandchildren and for their own economic place in the scheme of things. When I go up there, I will apologise that we were distracted by other issues and not theirs. I'm pleased to stand in this place in support of the Mirarr people of the Northern Territory and thank members for their contribution to the debate.
This bill is an important step, as I said, to the return of their land in Jabiru and towards the town's bright future as the gateway to Kakadu National Park. The Australian government has made a $216 million commitment to revitalise Jabiru and Kakadu to ensure their future as world-class tourist destinations, as the member for Lingiari mentioned this morning. Our investment will herald a new era of economic opportunity for the region, benefiting not only the Mirarr people but also the community and the Northern Territory economy.
This bill supports the Mirarr in leading the transition of Jabiru from a mining town, which they opposed, to a tourism town via a new township lease. This is imperative given the closure of the nearby Ranger Uranium Mine by 21 January and the expiry of existing leasing arrangements in Jabiru in June 2021. It provides for changes to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act to make the Jabiru township lease consistent with other township leases in the Northern Territory. It will allow the Jabiru head lease to be held either by the Commonwealth through the Executive Director of Township Leasing or by a community entity. It provides for a term of between 40 and 99 years. These provisions are essential to empower local decision-making and ensure secure tenure for businesses, residents and other stakeholders in the region. This bill will help return the traditional lands to the Mirarr people. It allows the Mirarr people to realise long-held aspirations and bring their own vision to life in Jabiru.
As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, it is essential that we foster an environment where we can enable more jobs and economic growth to ensure prosperity for all Indigenous Australians. This bill is economic empowerment. It is entrusting Indigenous Australians to make decisions that will benefit their communities and their people. Land security is economic security, and from economic security comes the ability to put in place the foundations that will lead to economic growth, job opportunity and a secure future for Indigenous Australians. The land rights act was amended in 2013 to provide a specific hand-back lease-back arrangement for Jabiru, including for a township lease to be held by the Commonwealth. This will now see the progression of those aspirations. The bill makes a minor consequential amendment to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to ensure that people are able to use or develop land in Jabiru that is subleased to them by the head lease. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Mirarr people, the traditional owners. Theirs has been a decade of long struggle to secure the opportunity to forge a future guided by their own aspirations.
In February last year, the parliament passed amendments scheduling four parcels of land as Aboriginal land in Kakadu National Park, surrounding Jabiru. Negotiations are now underway with the traditional owners of Kakadu to secure a lease-back arrangement with the Director of National Parks. These amendments complement those actions by giving effect to a leasing arrangement for the traditional owners of Jabiru. Traditional owners right across Kakadu National Park will be in control of the decisions that impact on them and their families for generations to come.
The Prime Minister reflected in his 2020 Closing the Gap address that to rob a person of their right to take responsibility is to deny them their liberty. He made it clear that we must restore the right to take responsibility, the right to make decisions and the right to step up. It must be accompanied by a willingness to push decisions down to the people who are closest to them. In passing the bill, we are embracing this change and backing the Mirarr people to achieve their social, cultural and economic independence and their aspirations.
I'm pleased to report to the House that the negotiation of the Jabiru township lease with the Northern Land Council and the Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation is on track, with negotiations continuing as recently as last week. A key next step in progressing the township lease is the passage of this bill during these sittings. This bill is significant not just for the Jabiru community but for the Australian nation as a whole. It supports the transformation of Jabiru into a global tourist destination at the gateway to the jewel in the crown of Australia's national estate, where the traditional owners of the world's oldest living culture share with visitors their creation stories and the breathtaking vistas of Kakadu National Park. This bill will also bring about healing in this nation, restoring dignity and reviving pride. As a parliament, we should be honoured to be involved in this important and historic moment.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The House divided. [17:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:22): The question now is that this bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for International Development and the Pacific and Assistant Defence Minister) (17:22): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Australia's Family Law System Joint Select Committee
Reporting Date
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (17:23): The Speaker has received a message from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has agreed to the following resolution:
That the time for the presentation of the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System be extended to the last sitting day in February 2021.
The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in the variation to the resolution of appointment of the committee.
Ordered that the message be considered immediately.
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for International Development and the Pacific and Assistant Defence Minister) (17:24): I move:
That the resolution of the Senate be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (17:25): This bill, the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020, would very significantly increase powers over people held in administrative forms of detention under the Migration Act, and—I make this point very clear at the outset—all of those people in immigration detention. This includes powers to enable the minister to ban almost any item for use in an immigration detention facility, with very limited safeguards—almost any item, but particularly mobile phones, detainees' means of maintaining contact with the outside world, with friends and family, and also, critically, their means of obtaining advice and alerting the broader public to the conditions in those centres.
This bill, accordingly, requires us to think about human rights and to think about the operation of our democracy. We should be doing so, of course, after the minister had clearly set out exactly why these powers were required and appropriate checks and balances around their use. He's not done so, and this is not good enough. To simply assert the changed composition of the cohort of people now in immigration detention is no justification for an across-the-board approach without any differentiation. The minister says that these powers are required because, in his words, 'a large proportion of people in detention have criminal histories,' but that can be no justification for blanket prohibitions—for not treating people as individuals on their own terms and for not recognising the particular circumstances of medical transferees, asylum seekers and people who've overstayed their visas, for example.
But this bill would amend the Migration Act to enable the minister to determine, by legislative instrument, prohibited things, in relation to immigration detention facilities and detainees. It would also enable the minister to issue binding written directives to authorised officers in relation to the exercise of these seizure powers. In other words, this is a renewed attempt by the government to amend the Migration Act to allow for the banning of almost any item, but principally mobile phones, from use within immigration detention facilities, including alternative places of detention such as hotels like the Preston Mantra and the Kangaroo Point hotel.
The government already has broad powers under the Migration Act and has failed to make the case as to why illegal activities in detention centres cannot be handled on a case-by-case basis or through existing state, territory and Commonwealth laws. The government has not established that existing laws and common law powers are insufficient in addressing such activities.
This bill, fundamentally, is a solution in search of a problem. It has been on the government's Notice Paper in one form or another for the past three years. But the fact is this: the government already has the powers it needs. The government already has the powers to remove prohibited items from people in immigration detention facilities. So Labor believes that if this bill were to be passed in its current form then it would result in serious, adverse and unwarranted consequences in respect of individuals in those facilities and more broadly.
Many of these concerns have previously been raised by stakeholders at the Senate inquiry into this bill and, indeed, in the context of the earlier bill. Of the 135 submissions to the inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, only three support the legislation: those of the Department of Home Affairs—no particular surprise there—and its two contractors, Serco and IHMS. Stakeholders and experts more broadly, on the other hand, have made it very clear that there would be undesirable consequences for some of the most vulnerable people in immigration detention facilities if this legislation passed as presented to the House. That's because—on the aspect of the bill that has attracted the most interest in the community, and understandably so—mobile phones generally provide a positive benefit to detainees and their welfare, particularly when you take into account the fact that some 42 per cent of the total immigration detention cohort have been in detention for over a year and the Refugee Council have stated in their submission that the average number of days spent in detention is 553. That's the average time in detention. If we think about the need for any human being to be in contact with their peers, as well as the necessary contacts required for medical purposes, for legal advice and otherwise, that is an extraordinarily long period, especially in the context of the pandemic, when other means of contact are obviously very limited in these facilities. Of course, access to mobile phones also provides an important wide benefit in enabling the scrutiny of conditions and conduct at immigration detention facilities. It is concerning that this is not an issue of any significant interest to the government.
During the Senate inquiry, the Department of Home Affairs failed to elaborate on whether or how the common law powers and existing powers are insufficient. This is a fundamental point, because the current legal frameworks permit the confiscation of a mobile phone from a detainee if there is reasonable cause, which seems to me to be a pretty reasonable requirement. Fundamentally, the government have not made the case as to why the broad sweeping powers for the confiscation of mobile phones and search and seizure from any detainee in any circumstance are warranted.
A substantially similar bill to this was introduced into this House in 2017, but it did not pass the Senate and lapsed on the dissolution of the parliament last year. Labor had serious concerns in respect of a number of provisions of that bill. The concerns were shared by every organisation that contributed to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's consideration, other than the Department of Home Affairs. Our concerns were then set out in seven recommendations made by the Labor senators on that committee. We made it clear that if these recommendations were positively responded to by the government and agreed as amendments we would enable the passage of that bill. But the government did not engage with that constructive proposal, and that bill lapsed. With this government, this issue and, indeed, pretty much any issue it's always about the politics, not about substantive decision-making. Even now, those issues have not been properly dealt with by the minister. They remain very serious concerns to Labor and to almost every organisation that engaged with the Senate inquiry into this bill.
Once again, the bill is before the House in the migration area that is almost friendless, although the department has now been joined by Serco and IHMS—hardly disinterested observers. I note that some changes have been made to the 2017 provisions. I will discuss these, and they are very important, but let me be very clear: as of now, the provisions of the bill before the House do not adequately address the concerns that we have raised. The minister has not adequately set out the basis for this power grab on his behalf. The powers this bill would confer are significant and they are coercive.
The bill raises some very important questions. Some are technical questions going to the detail of how to achieve an objective, but others are more fundamental: how we treat people, including vulnerable people who are in detention, which is administrative, not punitive, in nature under the migration act; whether we recognise their individual circumstances or regard them as part of a uniform class, regardless of the reasons of their detention, their particular needs and their particular vulnerabilities; and about how democracy should work, about the checks and balances that we should apply to executive power, including coercive powers like strip searches and denying people access to phones and to communication with the outside world.
Labor will always act constructively and seek to advance our national interests in this area of policymaking, but it's clear to us and it should be clear to members opposite that we can secure our borders without abandoning our humanity and that we can uphold the law and keep people—detainees, staff and others—safe in immigration detention facilities without executive overreach that is unnecessary and unchecked. We can and we must uphold human rights. This cannot be an optional extra in our decision-making and our lawmaking. Australia must be a leader and an exemplar in this regard. This requires us in this place to be satisfied that the proposed measures are necessary and proportionate. As of now, we in Labor are not satisfied. We have listened to the government and listened to the evidence and we have found it wanting. We will continue to engage constructively, however, and hope the minister and the government will reciprocate.
Mr Hawke interjecting—
Mr GILES: The minister at the table says this has been going on forever. It has, but the government's response has not shown any evidence of that. You are doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. A different outcome is possible if you have regard to the evidence and, indeed, if you properly state the case you wish to make. My colleague Senator Keneally has written to the minister, setting out a basis upon which we could progress this legislation. We await a response. We await serious engagement with the serious issues we have raised. This bill and its history tell a story about this government and its attitude to immigration policy—about cynicism, about a willingness to treat people in our care in ways that they should not be treated and about a deep aversion to scrutiny.
In the minister's second reading speech, he sets great store by changes to the cohort of people presently detained and the consequences that, he asserts, flow from this. In its essence, this is the rationale for the bill before the House today. In the media and on social media the minister has pressed this case, heavy on rhetoric, light on facts—which is his style and the style of the Minister for Home Affairs, a role that he may be interested in—a critical fact being that prohibited items are already a vehicle under existing state, territory and Commonwealth laws, particularly narcotic drugs, child exploitation material and weapons. These items present a demonstrable risk to people in facilities, both detainees and staff.
The minister is of course entitled to carry on his audition for the Home Affairs portfolio, but legislation such as this should be treated with the utmost seriousness. It's an odd thing for a Liberal to seem so blase about treating people as members of a group rather than as individuals, especially so when, as he's fond of reminding us, some in that group are people with significant criminal histories, while others are not. While his department has stated that this legislation 'seeks to strike a balance between the individual rights of detainees and the protection of the community, facility staff, visitors and other detainees'—a reasonable objective, one with which I concur—there is little evidence of a search for balance between these considerations when it comes to the words of the minister. But it is this balance that we must be working to achieve, and this is Labor's approach to the bill. The second reading amendment I will move goes directly to this, as does Senator Keneally's letter to the minister.
The current bill does differ in several respects from the bill introduced in 2017. These represent improvements, but not sufficient improvements to support passage of the legislation in its present form. In particular, it's now proposed that the declaration by the minister that items are prohibited items is a disallowable instrument. This was not previously the case. However, as the Kaldor Centre seem to have made clear—and I will touch on this further—in the circumstances this concession is not as significant as it might appear. Medications and treatments provided for use by detainees cannot be declared prohibited items in respect of such use. Detector dogs may be used now only, it is proposed, to search facilities and not people, detainees or others present in a facility. Unlike in the former bill, the powers provided for will not be applicable to people in community detention. There is now a power, though, through which the minister would be able to make a legislative instrument in effect directing the seizure of a thing. Some of these changes address some concerns raised by others in respect of the previous bill—I do acknowledge this—but they do not resolve our concerns. This is why, having carefully considered the Senate committee's work and the submissions to it, Senator Keneally has written to the minister. There can be no doubt about Labor's position on this bill or, substantively, on the issues it seeks to put before the parliament.
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 that:
(1) illegal activity is illegal—even in detention centres;
(2) the Government already has the powers to address the concerns raised in the bill;
(3) Labor has written to the Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs with a proposal to improve the bill, which, in its current form, will have adverse and unwarranted consequences; and
(4) as of the resumption of debate today, Labor has not received a response from the Acting Minister".
To address these four broad areas of concern, we have sought agreement from the government to withdraw and rewrite the bill or to amend the bill to ensure it doesn't impose broad and sweeping measures which would punish all detainees. As with the former bill, Labor now seeks to be constructive. We have listened to the government. We have listened to the experts and others who are concerned, including many constituents of mine, and put forward some proposals which we believe balance those considerations that need to be balanced. We await a response. But, without engagement from the government, we cannot support the bill that is presently before the House.
Members would be aware—and I hope they have carefully considered this—that this bill has been the subject of an inquiry by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Some 135 individuals and organisations made submissions to this inquiry. I take this opportunity to thank them for their engagement and acknowledge the work of the senators on the committee, in particular my Labor colleagues. Before I get to that, I will observe that the majority committee view, as expressed at paragraphs 2.70 to 2.73, is telling and quite extraordinary. In this, government members baldly state that they believe:
… the framework established by the bill would provide the Department of Home Affairs with the flexibility and the authority to ensure the ongoing safety and security of immigration detention facilities, in a way that would not have the effect of 'blanket banning' items.
It is hard to imagine a less convincing attempt at justification for the provisions in this bill, which do in fact just that. But perhaps that's because the evidence to the committee didn't give government members much to work with. It is deeply troubling that lawmakers could rely on trusting the executive to facilitate access to phones in the face of all the evidence put before them. As the government members put it:
… the committee expects the department will continue to ensure reasonable access to telephones …
Expects! The powers contained in this bill are far-reaching. Before we grant such powers to the executive, particularly in respect of some vulnerable people, we must surely be satisfied that they are necessary, proportionate and adequately circumscribed. That's our job. We can't do it by simply stating how we expect it should be done, not in any context and particularly not knowing what we now know about this government and the issues that took place in immigration detention under its watch.
The dissenting report of the Labor senators recognises the challenge the bill is intending to respond to but finds that the government has failed to make a case for why this situation cannot be handled on a case-by-case basis or through existing legislation. That's a conclusion that is almost impossible to disagree with. In terms of those existing powers, in the face of considerable evidence to the effect that they meet the needs of the case stated by the government, it is significant that the department failed to elaborate on whether or how such powers should be regarded as insufficient. The concern of Labor senators that the bill applies, without differentiation, to all detainees is a critical one. Of course high-risk individuals in detention should be treated accordingly, through targeted interventions, which could also provide further protections for staff in these facilities, if the government were serious about that issue.
The Labor senators' report raises additional issues that are worthy of mention. Firstly, the inconsistent approach on the part of this government to managing safety and risks in immigration detention. This is a serious matter, as the ombudsman has too often had to report to this parliament and to the community. We should be determined to keep everyone in our care, and indeed in our custody, safe.
Serious concerns are also raised when it comes to data, where considerable confusion has arisen, including in the course of the Senate inquiry process. To say the least, this is unhelpful, particularly when such store is placed in the composition of the detainee cohort. Lawmakers and others in the broader community should be able to engage in this debate on the basis of facts that are certain.
Further issues arise in relation to the failure of the government to engage with the concerns of the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee and also about the application of powers in this bill to alternative places of detention, a very significant issue in the present circumstances when there are, I believe, more than 200 people presently detained in APODs. So, I urge government members to carefully consider the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and perhaps to address that report in the course of their remarks in the debate in this place and in the other place as well, if it gets there.
Most of the debate in relation to this bill has been in relation to the issue of mobile phones. The policy of seeking to deny access to phones has been much criticised, and for good reason. Many submissions to the Senate inquiry set this out effectively. This is of particular importance in the context of the present pandemic, as the Bills Digest makes clear. Requirements of social distancing have denied detainees the capacity to have face-to-face meetings for some time now. Importantly, personal phones not only provide for privacy but reduce the risk of transmission through the use of shared devices. We should not overlook the anxiety of detainees, having regard to the physical nature of the facilities they are detained in and the evidence of community transmission in similarly confined environments.
Access to advice is important to detainees for practical and personal reasons. This is a matter of wellbeing and also of rights—the right to privacy, the right to freedom of expression and the right to representation, as well as, potentially, the constitutionally implied right to freedom of political communication. It is also noteworthy that the Australian Human Rights Commission has found that staff, as well as detainees themselves, have referred to the benefits of mobile phone use.
Statements to the effect that the intent is not to introduce a blanket ban are contradicted by the terms of the bill, which do not limit the powers of the minister. As the Human Rights Law Centre observed, contrary to statements in the explanatory memorandum that the amendments will provide for a targeted, intelligence-led, risk-based approach to the seizure of items, the proposed powers are designed to allow for a blanket ban on items that apply, regardless of circumstances. Once again, we simply cannot take the assurances of this government at face value. The minister could, and should, ensure that his proposed law matches these statements. He should also address directly the issue raised by the Kaldor Centre going to the implied freedom of communication and the potential inconsistency there.
The proposed powers that would enable searches of detainees and premises raise concerns too. Strip searches raise particular concerns about human dignity and privacy. It's one thing for the minister to recognise that the changed nature of the immigration detention population raises new issues; this is a reasonable point. But it does not, and cannot, follow that this provides a warrant for all those powers contained in the bill. Again, the proper approach is to clearly state the problem and match the solution to it, and to explain why it has to be that a case-by-case approach is not appropriate—recognising, of course, that our criminal laws apply to people in detention. The department has had no answer to this proposition, and the minister seems to want to wish it away. The Labor senators' report makes a telling point here:
If expert legal witnesses are correct in arguing that existing laws are adequate to deal with the types of situations described by the Government, the bill is a strong indication of the failure of the Government, the minister, and the Department of Home Affairs to manage complex issues in the detention centres.
Indeed.
I now turn to the question of oversight. Oversight—or, rather, its absence—was a feature of expert submissions to the Senate inquiry. Effective parliamentary oversight is an essential element of our democracy, but it's not something the present government is committed to with its fondness for delegated legislation. I've already acknowledged certain improvements in this bill from its predecessor, notably in providing that the declaration of a prohibited thing will now be disallowable, but it remains unsatisfactory from any perspective concerned with democratic accountability. Uncertainty compounds this too, with disagreement as to whether a single thing can be disallowed or whether the disallowance must apply to the entire list. This is a huge concern. The advice of the Parliamentary Library in this regard should give all members pause for thought. According to statements to the regulations and ordinances committee, this disallowance process cannot be generally used to amend an instrument. It follows that the utility of disallowance may be very limited in these circumstances. Again, we would have to take the government and the minister on trust. Further, as the Labor senators' dissenting report makes clear, the minister's written direction on actions going to prohibited things is not a disallowable instrument. On examination, the amendment to the previous bill seems rather more cosmetic than substantive.
Finally, it is important that we make clear that immigration detention facilities, including alternative places of detention, are not prisons. They are places of administrative detention. This distinction matters, even if this truth is inconvenient for the minister. We on the side of the House are anxious about the warnings that experts have given about the increasing securitisation of immigration detention. These warnings can't be ignored and the evidence of the Law Council of Australia should be heeded. It must be remembered that people in immigration detention are not prisoners, and their rights should not be curtailed as if they were. That's Labor's strong view too.
This bill is unnecessary. While it has had a long journey back to this place, in the form in which it has arrived today it cannot be supported. The minister needs to go back to the drawing board. He needs to clearly state his case, the problem he needs to solve and why present powers are insufficient for that purpose. He needs to have regard to the evidence, to state the facts and to listen to the experts.
He also needs to think about the values that we need to apply to this area of policymaking, not just the instrumental side but the values, the state of our democracy, our obligation to people who are in immigration detention and our obligation to the broader community. For these reasons, I encourage members opposite to think clearly about the issues this bill raises and to support the second reading amendment or, otherwise, to join us in voting down this bill and asking the government to come back with a better bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Butler: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
(Quorum formed)
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (17:53): I rise to speak on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020. What does it take for Labor to support Australian families in this chamber? That is my question. Time after time, I find their position completely baffling. We have consistently given Labor MPs and those on that side of the chamber the opportunity to do the right thing and, every time, they squib it. We have introduced mandatory sentences for federal sex offenders, we have introduced a public sex offenders register and we have introduced strong legislation to cancel visas on character grounds. Labor has failed to support mandatory sentences until their political games were called out on the front pages of national papers; they're still playing games with the public sex offenders register, to try to prevent that; and Labor MPs have failed to protect Australians through regularly cancelling visas on character grounds, as this government has done. Now they have the chance to stand up for Australian families by supporting this legislation, and they've failed to do it.
Here's the problem: currently the Migration Act provides that an authorised officer in a detention centre may search for only three things—weapons, escape aids or a document that may be evidence for grounds of cancelling that person's visa. Authorised officers do not have the power under the current act to search for or seize illegal drugs or other illegal items such as child exploitation material. In what world is that acceptable?
Under Labor in 2011-12, there were 14,438 illegal boats arrivals in detention as well as 2,216 visa overstayers and just 480 people whose visas had been cancelled on character grounds. So the majority of those in detention under Labor were people who had travelled illegally by boat to Australia because of the lax border policies of the Labor members opposite. We all remember those terrible images of the bodies of women and children having to be fished out of the water. But, of course, once this government came to office, we ensured that the borders were strong and that illegal arrivals under Labor were resettled.
As of 31 July 2020, there were just 1,558 people remaining in immigration detention facilities compared to 17,000 under Labor. And the make-up is now very different as well. The government has strengthened section 501 of the Migration Act to better protect the Australian community from non-citizen nationals who commit serious crimes. The changes have allowed us to cancel the visas of 4,600 individuals who have committed serious criminal offences in Australia. Of those detainees currently, 70 per cent, 1,120, have a criminal record, including those whose visas have been cancelled or refused under character grounds of section 501. That means two-thirds of the people in detention facilities today have criminal records. These are people with a history of child sex offences, violent crimes, murder, domestic violence, rape. Others have come to immigration detention with significant histories of drug-related offences and proven links to criminal organisations—to bikie gangs.
Many have been placed in immigration detention directly from correctional facilities. Unsurprisingly, some of these individuals seek to continue criminal activities and associations, but the law hasn't kept up with this fact—for example, there have been almost 600 reports of phone misuse in the last four years. Detainees are using mobile phones to conduct criminal activities such as fraud, drug deals, the grooming of children and other child exploitation offences.
Sensibly, this bill will give the minister the power to ensure there is a disallowable legislative instrument to prohibit an item. Prohibited items, for example, will be mobile phones and SIM cards, internet cable devices and illegal drugs—this is what we're talking about. The bill will also allow authorised officers to search immigration detention facilities on behalf of the Commonwealth, including using detector dogs, and to ensure that they are able to look at this material.
The member for Gellibrand said we hadn't made our case for this bill. Here are some cases for him; I hope he is listening. This month alone two detainees in Brisbane, at the Kangaroo Point facility where they are being held in our home town, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, have been charged with the possession and distribution of child exploitation material in two separate incidents. In one, the detainee actually held up his phone to a Serco officer to show him a video of a child being abused, and under the current act the Serco officer couldn't just take that phone off him. In what kind of world is this acceptable to the Labor members opposite?
In another incident, a Finnish national who was in the detention centre downloaded and distributed over 5,855 child exploitation images and 222 videos. Before he came to immigration detention, he was a known offender and yet he still had a mobile phone—absolutely appalling. These kinds of cases clearly demonstrate the need for new powers for Australian Border Force officers to seize mobile phones in immigration detention facilities to prevent these kinds of activities by detainees where they are contributing and participating in child exploitation material.
Under current laws, officers are not legally able to search for or seize mobile phones, even if they know they are being misused. The current laws also prevent officers searching for and seizing items that are clearly illegal, such as illicit drugs. For example, at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre four people were arrested as part of a criminal syndicate that New South Wales police had uncovered. When the police searched the detainees' room, they found white powder and several mobile phones that aided in this criminal conspiracy—a search that ABF officers could not undertake themselves. Another example is of a detainee in detention who was a known extremist sympathiser who downloaded extremist material onto his iPad and then proceeded to show all the other detainees the extremist material. This iPad could not, under current laws, be confiscated by ABF officers. In another example, a detainee uploaded a photo to social media of a contracted medical officer, falsely accusing her of criminal acts, and comments on the post included abusive and violent messages towards the medical officer. A medical officer, an Australian who has gone into immigration detention to help people, on behalf of all Australians, is the victim of this vile abuse by detainees. Even once a detainee has done this, ABF officers can't take their phone away from them.
That Labor won't wholeheartedly support this bill is absolutely mind-blowing. It's crazy stuff, frankly. Thankfully the new powers in this bill will enable ABF officers to search for drugs and confiscate mobile phones. It will enable sniffer dogs to go in and search detention facilities for illegal drugs, and other protections apply. The member for Gellibrand also spoke about what protections are in place. Labor would have you believe that this bill is some kind of terrible infringement on rights, when what we are trying to do is prevent people from engaging in criminal activities inside an Australian funded and operated detention centre. The fact is, let's remember, that, in the event that a detainee has their mobile phone removed, they still have access to a 24/7 landline and computers with internet access. Detainees have contact with their families and friends, which supports their resilience and mental health. Migration agents and legal representatives are also able to contact their clients using audiovisual equipment, and detainees have access to private rooms for phone calls. There are other existing protections that are in place to ensure detainees' dignity—that officers should not make greater use of force or subject the detainee to greater indignity than is reasonably necessary during a search; that, in the case of a search, the authorised officer must be of the same sex as the detainee; and that all persons in immigration detention have the right to lodge complaints while they are in detention. So the protections are absolutely in place for detainees if they feel that that is required.
What's important to remember is that mobile phones, as well as illicit drugs, cause an unacceptable risk, particularly to those Australians who are working in immigration detention centres. I was drawn to the submission by Serco to the inquiry into this bill. Serco states that the bill 'will help achieve the health and safety outcomes that Serco aims to provide'. What are they talking about here? They're talking about the safety of their staff. The submission cites cases in which detainees have collected information about staff members. They're taking photos of them and posting them on social media and saying, 'This is the person who is currently detaining me.' These people have links to criminal bikie gangs, so they're posting it to their associates. Can you just imagine, as an Australian, if somebody with known criminal links to bikie gangs was posting about you as you did your job, having a go at you, the fear that you would feel and the fear that you would feel for your family? But in these cases, when we absolutely know it's happening—we've got examples of it; we can see it—we can't currently take the mobile phone. This bill will ensure that we can so that these people who are working on behalf of all Australians to run these detention immigration centres can do so in safety without fear of retribution to them or their families.
What about the examples where Australian Border Force officers have seen people throwing illegal drugs over the fence? They've seen it. They've seen the drugs get thrown over the fence. They then see the detainee pick up said drugs but the current powers are such that they can't then go and search the detainee or the room where the detainee is residing, even though they know it has occurred. It's very clear the law has not kept up as it should. There has been a change from people who are in detention from illegal boat arrivals; now, over 70 per cent are criminals.
Since 2013 the government has significantly reduced the number of people held in detention—from over 17,000 to less than 2,000 today. In doing so the government has closed 17 detention facilities across Australia, saving taxpayers more than $500 million. There is a lot of compassion in that, in ensuring that people are not kept in detention. But, of those who are, over 70 per cent are now convicted criminals. It is important that, if Australians are going to pay for detention, if Australians are going to run these facilities, the detainees then not be involved in the illegal drug trade, not be involved in organised crime and not be involved in soliciting child exploitation material in these facilities. This bill will make that happen. (Time expired)
(Quorum formed)
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (18:09): The Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 is a bill that, if passed in its current form, would allow the government to prohibit items such as mobile phones in detention centres. But there's a particular place of detention that I wanted to mention, and that's the one in my electorate, at the Kangaroo Point motel. That motel houses a number of people at the moment and has done now for many, many months. The government decided to establish what they call an 'alternative place of detention' at Kangaroo Point—but it is what most people would think of as a makeshift detention facility in a motel—some time ago. Regrettably, they didn't consult with me before establishing that facility, but nonetheless it's been established in my electorate. There have been a number of people in that APOD, as they call it, for a long time now.
The facility has been controversial, but I will say that, regardless of what people think about the protests that have been mounted in relation to that facility, I've yet to find anyone who thinks it's a good thing that people—people who are here because they are in need of medical attention—are being held there for a very long time. People are concerned—my constituents are concerned—about the health and wellbeing of those who are being housed in the APOD, and they're concerned about what the future might hold for those people as well. Many of my constituents have called for the government to allow the people in the APOD to live in the community rather than in a makeshift detention centre in a hotel, and many of those same constituents are concerned about the effect that this bill, if it were passed in its current form, would have on the health and wellbeing of people who are being housed in the APOD.
My constituents have had significant concerns about this, and so have I—in fact, even before the COVID epidemic. Of course, once I found out that this APOD had been established in my electorate I insisted on being able to go inside, which I have done once. What I saw inside, and this was, as I said, well before the COVID epidemic, was very cramped living conditions for a lot of people who were not in great shape to begin with. In fact, that's what they're here for, to get medical attention. To not have certainty, to not have a clear way forward into the future is very difficult for them. Many of them have families outside the detention centre, and they are very concerned. Once the COVID pandemic hit, people were even more concerned about the conditions within that centre. So a lifeline to the outside world has been really important. We've been calling on the government repeatedly to make sure that they are doing everything they possibly can to protect the health and wellbeing of people within that centre. We've also been calling on the government to allow people to go into the community, where it's safe—for that to occur and not to be housed in the hotel.
I am very concerned that, if this bill was passed in its current form, the removal of people's mobile phones from them would cause a further diminution in the health and wellbeing of the people who are living in the APOD. It's been very difficult to bring the government to supporting in a meaningful way the people who are living in the APOD. For example, I've been trying to get an electric guitar into the APOD for a resident in there for whom music is a release. Music is a release for a lot of people. It is for me. I can only imagine what it would be like to not have an instrument after being cooped up in a hotel for months on end. But trying to get this government to enable even that to occur, so that a resident in the APOD can at least play some music to blow off a bit of steam, has been incredibly difficult. I say this not because I think it is the biggest issue in the world. Of course, it's not. It's an example of how even minor things seem to be just too much trouble for this government. So I am quite concerned about what it would be like if the government had the right to just put an outright prohibition on mobile phones for people who are living in this place of detention. I know that my constituents are concerned about that as well.
I wanted to speak on this bill really to say that I do encourage the government to look very closely at Senator Keneally's correspondence. I do encourage the government not to politicise this bill. I have to say I've lost hope in that a bit after hearing the member for Ryan's contribution in this debate. He seems to think that this is just an opportunity for partisanship and bashing the Labor Party. This is an opportunity to remember that in my electorate there is a hotel in which there are living a number of people who don't know what the future holds for them and who for seven years haven't known what the future holds for them. Refugees are refugees because they have fled persecution. That is what a refugee is. So we've got people who have already had terrible experiences in their home country who then sought protection and have then had quite a feeling of hopelessness as they've waited and waited and waited to find somewhere to live permanently, settle and start their new lives. And now, with this hanging over their heads, I can only imagine the anxiety that it's causing for them.
So I do encourage the government, as I said, to do the right thing—to take into account, in good faith, the issues put forward by the Labor Party; to take into account the correspondence that Senator Kristina Keneally has sent to the minister; to see what can be done in relation to dealing with some of the issues that have been raised in support of this bill while, at the same time, not contributing to further distress, anxiety and hopelessness on the part of people who are living in an APOD because they have come seeking help. That's what I encourage. I hope that that is taken up in good faith. I hope that we don't see partisanship and the politicisation of this issue with an eye on the electoral consequences but that instead we treat people with the dignity that they deserve, because they are human beings. They're not a means to an end. They deserve to be treated with dignity and with respect and as an end in themselves. And this government, I hope, will take heed, do the right thing and see what can be done to resolve some of the very important issues that have been raised.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I might also, in closing, draw your attention to the condition of the House.
(Quorum formed)
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (18:19): I take no joy in speaking to this bill, the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020, because this bill really shouldn't exist. I'll say at the outset: Labor does not support it, and we made it very clear to the minister why. The intent of this bill is to allow the minister to prohibit or ban almost any item from use within an immigration detention facility, including alternative forms of detention.
The bill applies to visa holders who have had their visas cancelled due to committing a crime or who are in detention, waiting to be deported home—despite having served their sentences here—and also to people who are seeking asylum and refugees. These are people who have sought Australia's protection and who have been detained indefinitely by the Morrison government. It is not a crime to seek asylum, so let's unpack the Orwellian language contained in the bill and break down what it really means.
It gives police-like powers to so-called 'authorised officers' and to unnamed 'other' persons—for example, Serco guards—to unilaterally decide to ban any object. It gives them powers to conduct personal searches without any reason of suspicion. It allows them to use strip searches and police dogs to look for these items. It allows this to happen in places like the Mantra hotel in my seat of Cooper, where people seeking asylum are being detained after being medevacked here due to their deteriorating mental and physical health.
The bill is just so typical of this Liberal government: an overreach designed to try to convince Australians that refugees who arrive in Australia by boat are bad and dangerous. The crux of this bill is actually the confiscation of mobile phones, which are currently used appropriately by the vast majority of detainees to keep themselves connected to their families, lawyers, doctors and community supporters, and to information about the outside world. Labor has been very clear about its opposition to this bill since 2017, when the government first tried to introduce it. Both times, Labor have issued a dissenting report to the committee set up to investigate it. We have outlined seven recommendations, including that the government withdraw and rewrite the bill or significantly amend the bill to ensure that it doesn't impose broad, sweeping measures that punish detainees. Labor unequivocally do not support phones being removed from detainees who have done nothing wrong. Labor have written to the acting minister, outlining our concerns and noting that if government refuses to accept all our recommendations and properly amend the legislation then the bill should not be passed.
My colleagues have noted that the government already has broad powers under the Migration Act and has failed to make the case as to why illegal activities in detention centres cannot be handled on a case-by-case basis or through existing state, territory and Commonwealth laws, so I want to focus on the real intent behind this bill.
As the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre stated in their submission, this bill only exists to:
… remove detainees' access to devices with internet connectivity, which are their 'life-line' to family, community support, lawyers and medical assistance; and—
Most significantly—
to prevent public scrutiny and accountability for what is occurring within our detention centres.
As I said earlier, my seat of Cooper takes in the Mantra hotel where around 50 people seeking asylum have been detained since coming to Australia under the medevac process. Every person in this group of transferees was prescreened for character or security issues before they were allowed to enter Australia. This cohort presents no risk to the Australian community.
They are my constituents. Some are my friends. I have met the men and have been fighting to have them released into the community. I speak to a number of them on their mobile phones. I will not support a bill which takes away their phones. Their phones are their lifelines. The refugees at the Mantra and in other places of detention have children. They have wives, families and friends. They are not singular entities defined by their decision to seek asylum.
This passage from the ASRC's submission should make any reasonable person want to dump this bill and never let it see the light of day:
I have a son who I talk to every day and my partner and my family that is everything that I ever cared about. If they take our phone away from us, it's going to break us. The bond that I have with my kid is the main thing. Everything about it will break us if they take our phone away. The phone is the only good thing that we have. I can talk to my son on video and feel like I'm there with him even though I'm not there. This gives me confidence in life that all these things that are happening to me are not too bad after all.
We have witnessed the mental and physical deterioration of people in long-term detention as their spirits break and hope disappears. Their connections to family and friends through their mobile phones are the last threads which hold them together. Their phones are also their connections to legal representation. Again, as submitted by the ASRC:
… in recent years all physical visits to detention centres, including professional visits, have become much more cumbersome and difficult to obtain approval for, and to arrange. In this context of isolating detainees from visitors, there is now much greater reliance by lawyers and others on contacting detainees' via their personal phones.
This concern was shared by the Law Council in their submission:
… the Bill … and … its explicit focus on mobile phones, has the potential make access to legal representation and support significantly more difficult, and will unjustifiably exacerbate what is already a challenging environment that must operate within strict procedural time limitations.
66. Mobile phones … are critical to ensuring that the detainee is aware of their right to legal advice in the first place—a right which is not made sufficiently clear.
Refugees have also used their mobile phones to speak out on the cruelty of their situation. The images beamed out from inside the facilities put names to faces. In the media now we regularly see Moz and Farhad, including on ABC's Q+A. The mobile phones give us a glimpse of life behind the locked gates and fences—and, you know, Australians don't like what they see. They don't believe in locking up people who've committed no crime. They don't support denying people medical treatment. They think it's crazy to lock up a family with two young kids on Christmas Island when their community of Biloela wants them home. My community of Cooper regularly tell me how sickened and saddened they are to be governed by a party who continues with the cruel policy of indefinite detention. I don't doubt the desire to silence these brave refugees also lies at the heart of this bill. I don't doubt that there is a desire to silence these brave refugees.
No-one is capable of enduring the torture of indefinite detention. Again, the ASRC:
Continued detention of these refugees, many with histories of trauma, is used as collective punishment for them having attempted to exercise their right to seek Australia's protection more than seven years ago.
After up to seven years on Manus or Nauru, the men at the Mantra have been confined to cramped hotel rooms for more than 12 months. They're unable to go outside except for sparse rostered visits to closed detention facilities to exercise. The COVID outbreak has been extremely stressful, and many are rapidly deteriorating in terms of mental and physical health. I wrote to the minister back in April requesting that he consider community detention as a way to minimise the risk of a COVID outbreak. The UNHCR, lawyers and public health officials made similar requests. The government's response to the risk of a COVID outbreak is to threaten the men with a move to over 3,000 kilometres away, to Yongah Hill, where they will lose access to their caseworkers, legal representation and community supports. All the while, they are facing the prospect of losing access to their phones—their one connection to the outside world.
I genuinely fear what the passing of this legislation will do to the refugees. So I end with a plea to those who sit opposite. The people affected by this bill have been through enough. Many have escaped war, famine and other horrors and have spent much of the last seven years detained by this government. This government has the power to drop this bill. It has the power to release refugees, where appropriate, into community detention. It can make sure that refugees and people seeking asylum have access to medical treatment, and, most importantly, it has the power to resettle these people in safe, permanent homes. They must do this. They must act justly and with humanity.
(Quorum formed)
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (18:32): Deputy Speaker, I'm speaking to you from the electorate of Moreton, a very multicultural electorate, on the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020. Next week the coalition government enters its eighth year of government—eight years with the Liberal and National Parties having somebody in the Lodge, even though that's rotated a bit. Let me repeat that: its eighth year of government. This bill is about people currently held in immigration detention facilities—either people who this coalition government put into immigration detention or those who have been its responsibility for what is now going into the eighth year. So forget Home Affairs Minister Dutton bleating on about what happened in the past. Anyone who's currently in immigration detention is the coalition's responsibility, and the fact that they've brought a bill before the parliament that includes such outrageously nebulous and sweeping powers is proof that the current and former ministers can't effectively manage those in their care.
There is some history to the introduction of this bill. The National Justice Project, on behalf of around 80 detainees, launched legal action in 2017 against the department for confiscating detainees' mobile phones. The legal action of the detainees was successful. They obtained an injunction from the Federal Court on the grounds that the officers involved did not have any authority to arbitrarily confiscate phones. The Department of Home Affairs appealed the decision, and they lost. In response to that humiliating loss, the government introduced the Migration Amendment (Clarification of Jurisdiction) Bill 2018. That bill sought to override the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear some immigration cases in the first instance. However, that bill did not progress through the House and ultimately lapsed at the last election.
The current bill before the House is a complete overreach. It attempts to ban almost any item from use within immigration detention facilities, including alternative places of detention, such as hotels just down the road, like the Kangaroo Point hotel in Brisbane. The government already has broad powers under the Migration Act. If there are illegal activities occurring in detention centres, they should be handled on a case-by-case basis, something the member for Ryan doesn't seem to understand. We do have sworn officers in the Queensland Police Service and Australian Federal Police who can respond to crimes. There are state, territory and Commonwealth laws already at the disposal of the government to investigate and halt any illegal activity. The design of this legislation is such that a 'prohibited thing' is not defined in the legislation; rather, Minister Dutton will have the ability to prohibit or ban almost any item for use within an immigration detention facility through the use of a disallowable instrument.
It is my view that a 'prohibited thing' should be defined in the legislation and brought before the parliament rather than snuck in via regulation. I'd also point out that people in immigration detention are held in administrative, not punitive, detention. As the Law Council of Australia observed:
It must be remembered that people in immigration detention are not prisoners, and their rights should not be curtailed as though they were.
They should not be punished by taking away their ability to contact their family or friends.
As deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has already scrutinised this piece of legislation, I'm aware of the possible detrimental effect on detainees from prohibiting access to mobile phones or other electronic devices. As at 31 May this year, over 42 per cent of the total immigration detention cohort had been in detention for over a year, and more than a quarter had been in detention for over two years. Prohibiting access to mobile phones would severely restrict the ability of detainees to maintain contact with their family, their loved ones and their friends. Although the minister advised the human rights committee that detainees would have access to landline phones and the internet, that would not allow detainees to have sufficiently private conversations with their loved ones. Where the family of a detainee is located overseas, that may pose difficulties for detainees without mobile phones. Time differences may mean their calls can't be made or received during the night, which wouldn't allow the use of a landline provided in a common area, to be heard by all. The international human rights advice provided to the committee was:
… it does not appear that the alternative means of communication available to detainees who would no longer be able to access mobile phones and internet capable devices would sufficiently protect their right not to have their private and family life arbitrarily or unlawfully interfered with …
This bill also has enormous powers of search and seizure. It would allow for searches without a warrant for a prohibited thing. A detainee could be searched personally, along with their clothing and any property under the detainee's immediate control. This search could occur even if the officer conducting the search had no suspicion at all that the detainee had any such item. The bill also provides the ability to conduct strip searches for a prohibited thing. The explanatory memorandum states that the bill's purpose is to:
… seek to strengthen the Department of Home Affairs’ ability to regulate the possession of particular items in immigration detention facilities in order to ensure that the Department can provide a safe and secure environment for staff, detainees and visitors in an immigration detention facility.
However, an officer does not need to have formed a reasonable suspicion before they conduct a search for prohibited things, and without assessing any specific risk. The bill also empowers the minister to direct officers to seize any prohibited thing from all detainees. As pointed out in report 9 of 2020: Human rights scrutiny report, the lack of limitations on these powers in the bill risk being an arbitrary interference with the right to privacy, including the right to bodily integrity, and with the rights of the child. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states:
Evidence indicates that detainees are using mobile phones and other internet-capable devices to organise criminal activities inside and outside immigration detention facilities, to coordinate and assist escape efforts, as a commodity of exchange, to aid the movement of contraband, and to convey threats to other detainees and staff.
If that's the case and there is evidence of the criminal activity alleged, the current legal framework already permits the confiscation of mobile phones from detainees if there is reasonable cause. But the minister has just not made the case for why these broad, sweeping powers for confiscation of mobile phones from detainees in any circumstances, even without reasonable cause, are necessary.
The government claims this bill is all about providing a safe and secure environment for staff, detainees and visitors to an immigration detention facility, but if they really wanted to achieve that they would respond to the allegedly illegal behaviour by some detention facilities staff. The Department of Home Affairs, in response to a question on notice, provided the following information:
Between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2020 there were eight investigations into allegations that staff of detention facilities were bringing in contraband including drugs. Of these:
none related to Department or Australian Border Force staff;
eight related to Serco officers; and
five related to the bringing of illicit drugs or drug paraphernalia into immigration detention centres
In an answer to question on notice to Senator Carr, the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman confirmed that it was:
… aware of allegations of conduct by department staff and/or Serco officers that could constitute unlawful behaviour. These allegations include:
General assault
Misuse of mechanical restraints
Excessive use of force
Drug trafficking.
The government's approach to safety in immigration detention facilities should be consistent, not some ad hoc approach which just targets those who are most vulnerable.
Labor has tried to work with the government to ensure that this legislation is targeted to achieve the stated outcome but unfortunately, the minister, surprisingly, is just not listening. This bill has already been considered by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, which tabled its report in June 2020. That committee raised concerns about the limited reasoning offered in the explanatory memorandum to justify the various expansions of powers suggested in the bill. The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs considered this bill. Labor senators tabled a dissenting report on the bill, recommending that the government either withdraw it or significantly amend the bill to address these concerns and ensure that the bill is focused on the specific risks and does not impose broad, sweeping measures that punish detainees who themselves might be at risk from high-risk detainees. The senators made other recommendations to limit the powers of the bill.
As I've already said, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I'm the deputy chair, also scrutinised this bill. That report was tabled last week along with a dissenting report from all of the Labor members and Greens member, so half of the membership of the Human Rights Committee. In relation to this bill, the dissenting report recommended amendments, including that an officer may only search a detainee where they have first formed a reasonable suspicion that the detainee has in their possession the thing being searched for and that it can reasonably be demonstrated that the prohibited thing would pose a risk to the health, safety or security of persons in the facility.
Further to those parliamentary committee reports, the shadow minister for home affairs has written to the Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to try to work with the government to improve this legislation in line with the concerns that have already been raised by stakeholders and the aforementioned inquiries. The conditions that Labor would support this legislation include: that the government withdraw and rewrite the bill, or significantly amend the bill, to ensure that it doesn't impose broad, sweeping measures that punish all detainees, many of whom themselves may be at risk from high-risk detainees; that a 'prohibited thing' be clearly defined in legislation, not in a legislative instrument, and this would enable appropriate parliamentary oversight; that instructions to all staff, including contractors, be issued on how to implement the minister's directions and be contained in a disallowable instrument; that any amendments ensure detainees are not prevented from possessing or using electronic devices, such as mobile phones, unless there is evidence that removal is necessary and proportionate; that any amendments implement measures that provide extra protections for staff working in immigration detention facilities, especially health and medical professionals—that's a very good thing; and that all parties to migration detention matters use the same publicly published data regarding detention statistics.
Sadly, so far, the shadow minister has received no response to these reasonable requests. Labor opposes this bill in its current form, and I support the amendment put forward by the member for Scullin.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (18:44): The utter hypocrisy of the 'freedom brigade' in the government is on show yet again. They're always the first ones to swear that they'll be going to the barricades to defend an individual's right to freedom and to say that government should not act to take away people's liberties. And then, the first chance they get, when they've got people under their control who they have a duty of care towards and who have committed absolutely no crime, what does the government do? It acts to take away their basic liberties.
The right to communicate with other people, for someone who has not committed a crime and is not in detention for having done anything wrong, ought to be fundamental. But what does the government do? The government says: 'Well, we've got these people that we lock up in hellholes, in detention facilities. We know that indefinite mandatory detention is unnecessary, but we do it anyway. We know that that causes people to get to the point where they harm themselves. It causes mental health problems. It causes people to despair.' The government knows all of this. It creates these systems of torture in this completely unnecessary system of mandatory detention—a system of mandatory detention that, of course, is supported by the Labor Party as well. And then what does it do, having created this system that it says it's so proud of? When the people who are in detention, not having done anything wrong—and I stress that point: not having done anything wrong—have the temerity, in the government's eyes, to then contact someone on the outside or perhaps try to broadcast what the conditions inside are like, what does the government do? The government moves to take away their individual liberties.
This bill, the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020, gives extraordinarily wide-ranging powers to the government to say that people who are in immigration detention, people who have come here seeking our help, may no longer have the right to effectively communicate with the outside world. The government is so fond of saying to everyone else—everyone who is on welfare or is subject to their other laws—that, if you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to hide. So, as the government says all the time, why wouldn't you be willing to have some sunlight shone on you? Why wouldn't you allow some intrusion into your life? But, when you try and do the same to the government and say to the government, 'If you've got nothing wrong, why are you trying to hide it?' the government crack down with the strong arm of the state. This is an assault on individual liberties by a government that is high on power. When it struggles in the polls, what does it do? It pulls out the old conservative playbook and says, 'How can we attack refugees and asylum seekers any further?' Having locked them up to the point where people, in some tragic instances, threaten to or actually do take their own lives, and having driven Australian asylum seeker policy to the point of cruelty where it's applauded by people like Donald Trump, the government now wants to hide from any exposure of what is happening and wants to restrict the rights of people who are doing nothing more than seeking freedom and seeking help.
What do we know? We know that people who are in immigration detention have done nothing wrong. They have committed no crime. They have been convicted of no crime. The people who are in immigration detention are entitled to the due process of law. The government routinely denies them that. We saw that especially with children, where the government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Every time the government has released a child from detention, it was preceded by court action. Eventually they realised that that was unsustainable and they turned around and changed their policies. But, every time an individual's breach of liberties is exposed, the government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming.
The ability of people to record and talk to people in the outside world about what is happening is vital. These people, who've done nothing wrong, should have the right to be able to communicate with people who can help them—not only help them advance their case, as they are entitled to with the due process of law which the government continues to deny them, but connect them with their friends and support networks as well, because being in indefinite mandatory detention can break people, and that's why it's so utterly wrong that Labor and Liberal continue to support it. This policy is a policy of cruelty that breaks people. One lifeline that people have is the ability to maintain connections with the outside world, and that relies on devices like phones and on other devices as well, and now the government is saying that the minister should have the right to take those away. Well, on what basis? Have these people been convicted of any crime? No, they haven't; the minister should just have the power to take any item that's deemed to be prohibited away.
Not only is there going to be a capacity to remove those but there are going to be capacities to come in and search people—to search people's property and also their persons—in order to determine whether they've got any of these prohibited items. And it's not sworn police officers who are going to be doing this. It'll be people who are often untrained. It'll be security guards, coming in and exercising greater powers than police have, in many instances, and persecuting these people even further. This will diminish not only the empowerment but also the rights and the mental health of people in our immigration detention facilities. It is no wonder that the bill has been criticised for contravening a large number of internationally recognised basic human rights. But that is the government's intention.
The government does not care about individual liberties, except when it thinks there are a few votes in it. But, when it comes to actually upholding human rights, when it comes to actually upholding the rule of law, this government is the first to throw individual liberties on the scrap heap, and we are seeing it here yet again. Just imagine if they tried to say, with respect to other people in the country on the mainland, 'You haven't done anything wrong, but I am going to give an untrained security guard the right to come in and search your home and take away your phone.' That is basically what the government is doing here, to someone who has done nothing wrong but is under the government's care. And these are people to whom we owe a duty of care, not this kind of assault on their liberties, on their health and on their rights that we are seeing.
So this bill is not amendable and should be rejected. It is a continuation of the bipartisan policy of cruelty towards refugees and asylum seekers. We should be debating how we could end mandatory detention and hold people for the smallest amount of time possible that you need to, to perform health and security checks, and then allow them to live in the community while their claims are processed, which would be increasing our humanitarian intake. We know that there are so many assaults on rights and liberties going on around the world that Australia, as a democracy—albeit a democracy that gets threatened every time one of these bills gets passed—is a place that people seek to come to, and we've got the capacity to take more people, to lift our humanitarian intake. That's what we should be debating.
Instead, as is always the case, we see this anytime the government is struggling for an agenda or struggling for a recovery plan or looking for a diversion from the fact that it has overseen absolute tragedies in aged care or that it has got no plan to get young people back to work or that we're seeing women losing hours of work at incredible rates and the government has then gone and attacked child care. The government has got no plan to deal with the recession and certainly no plan that's not going to make the climate crisis worse. The only plan they've come up with at the moment is one that involves extracting more gas, when we know that we're in the middle of a climate emergency and that gas is as dirty as coal. When the government have got no plan, what do they do? They pull out the playbook and turn around and attack people who need our help. This government is expert at punching down. And this is another move from the government, a government bereft of any agenda, to just punch down because they have got no positive alternative for the people of this country.
There comes a point where there is only so much hurt that you can do to people, and that is the case for people who are in immigration detention, in mandatory detention, at the moment. They have already been put in a legal limbo that means that they don't know when their case is going to be resolved, and, even though they might have a perfectly legitimate claim, they could end up waiting here for an extraordinarily long time indeed. And now the government is turning around and saying, 'We're going to deny you the right to even contact people in the outside world.'
The government, through this bill, admits that it is so ashamed of what it is doing to people in immigration detention that it will now no longer let them tell the rest of the world what is happening inside immigration detention. Well, government, if you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to hide and you should have nothing to fear from people who are in immigration detention having the right to possess the same kinds of items that the rest of us in the outside world have, including items that allow them to communicate and connect with people in the outside world and that, in many instances, may be the difference between having a healthy life and being extraordinarily unhealthy, to the point where they may tragically choose to attempt to take their own life, as we have seen in too many instances in immigration detention. This is a matter of people's health. For many people, it will be a matter of life and death. It's a matter of fundamental human rights and liberties. This bill should be opposed.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (18:55): Yesterday morning, I walked out to the point at Cornelian Bay here in Hobart, just behind the Cornelian Bay cemetery, and had a chance to look again at the modest memorial that has been erected there to all of the people that perished in the SIEV X disaster in 2001. Honourable members would remember that some 353 men, women and children—I think there were an estimated 146 children on SIEV X—drowned that terrible night. They drowned alone. It wasn't until the next day, we understand, that civilian Indonesian vessels that were in the area, fishing boats, were able to save a small number of people. What a chilling reminder of the horror of Australia's asylum seeker history. And it's not that SIEV X was the only horror to recount. In fact, our history is peppered with numerous instances of horrors and scandals.
For example, also in 2001, the merchant ship the Tampa picked up some 433 men, women and children from an asylum seeker boat that was also sinking. There was the scandal when the then Prime Minister, John Howard, dispatched almost 50 Special Air Service soldiers by boat to board the Tampa to ensure it would not bring those unfortunate souls to Australia. Also that year there was the children overboard scandal, when the then Howard government made a point of telling the Australian community that asylum seekers would stoop so low as to throw their children overboard in an attempt to facilitate them being rescued by Australian authorities.
But we don't have to just focus on 2001 and the Howard government. What about just last year, when the government repealed the medevac legislation—legislation that mandated nothing more than sick asylum seekers in offshore detention being brought to Australia for critical medical help? But, just when you thought the government had stooped as low as it could get, it stooped even lower by repealing that very sensible law that just ensured that sick asylum seekers could get medical attention.
I regret to say that neither major party has clean hands here. I've just rattled off a number of episodes involving coalition governments, but let's not forget it was the Keating Labor government in 1992 that actually invented mandatory detention—a creation of the Labor Party—and it's the Labor Party these days that is in lock step with the coalition government when it comes to continuing support for mandatory detention, continuing preparedness to use offshore processing and full support for measures like tow-backs, as dangerous and as inhumane as they are. So no-one's got clean hands here when it comes to Australia's response to asylum seekers.
Turning my mind to the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020 that's before the House, numerous organisations have lodged complaints about this bill. Numerous organisations have made it very, very clear what's wrong with this bill. In fact, I would refer honourable members to, if they read nothing more, at least read the summary of the Bills Digest, which notes:
The Bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report by 5 August 2020.
It said:
Submissions to the inquiry raised numerous concerns with the Bill. Common themes identified in submissions were: that the measures contained in the Bill are unnecessary and disproportionate in relation to the security risks posed in immigration detention; that the Minister’s power to prohibit items is unreasonably broad; and, specifically, that prohibiting mobile phones in immigration detention will unreasonably limit detainees' rights to privacy and political communication, and contact with family members and legal representatives. Stakeholders also expressed concern about the expansion of coercive powers such as strip searches.
The Bills Digest also notes:
The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills raised concerns that the amendments unduly infringe detainees' personal rights and liberties because the powers will apply to the entire detention population, not just high-risk detainees. It also raised concerns about: prohibited things being determined by the Minister instead of specified in the Act; broad discretionary powers being provided to the Minister; and the delegation of administrative powers.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that the Bill's measures were likely to engage, and could limit, a range of rights, including the right to privacy; right to humane treatment in detention; right to protection of the family; right to freedom of expression; children's rights; and the prohibition against torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
I could go on. The point I'm making is that a number of parliamentary inquiries have looked at this bill in detail and have taken evidence and submissions from numerous highly regarded organisations, and there has been an almost universal condemnation of this bill, and agreement that this bill must not be supported. I want to put on the public record absolutely clearly here that it does not have my support. It didn't have my support in 2017, when the coalition government first tried to progress these matters; it doesn't have my support tonight; and it never will have my support.
To my mind, the problem here is that this bill continues the practice of treating asylum seekers as criminals and the practice of treating detention centres as jails. That's where it just completely loses all touch with reality. The fact is that it is not illegal to seek asylum in another country. The people who are coming to Australia seeking our protection have committed no crime and are committing a crime; they are not convicted of any crime. So why on earth would a succession of governments remain committed to treating them like criminals and continue their determination to turn these detention centres—which, frankly, should be open centres; these people should be in community detention—into jails? I would remind members, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, that article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 states very clearly that everyone has a right to seek and to enjoy asylum from persecution in other countries. I will say that again. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 clearly states:
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
But that's not the only place to find such sentiments. Obviously, the right has developed and it's enshrined in the refugee convention of 1951.
The fact is that Australia is morally obliged, and obliged through international agreements which we've signed up to in good faith in years gone by in international law—morally and legally obliged—that when someone comes to our shores by whatever means, boat or aeroplane, we give them immediate protection and then, as quickly and effectively as we can, we hear their claims and determine the accuracy or otherwise of those claims. Of course, we have found that the claims of most asylum seekers who have made it to Australia have been absolutely accurate; and, when they are absolutely accurate, we are morally and legally obliged to give them permanent refuge in our 'lucky country'. That's what we should be doing. We have no right under any convention or international law or agreement to treat these unfortunate souls as criminals and to lean on policies of deterrence and punishment.
At this point I'll echo the comments of the member for Melbourne, who spoke just before me. He elaborated on these points very effectively. The fact is that our response to asylum seekers is a policy that has long been based on deterrence and punishment. There is no humanity in it. There is no humanity in taking someone's mobile phone away from them so they can't keep in touch with their family, so they can't keep in touch with legal representatives when they want to or need to and so they can't even go to the media when they are being mistreated in these detention centres.
Moreover, our governments have got to stop acting illegally themselves. All too often, the criminal in this whole sorry saga is the government of the day. I would remind members of this House that, as a signatory to the Rome Statute, we are committing crimes against humanity every time we detain someone indefinitely without conviction for any offence. I will make that point again. According to the Rome Statute, the Australian government is committing a crime against humanity every time we lock up an asylum seeker in inhumane conditions indefinitely without conviction for any offence.
I did not support this bill in 2017 and I don't support it tonight. I do not believe that the changes that have been made around the margins of this bill from the 2017 version have made it even remotely acceptable. I agree with the member for Melbourne: it's not amendable, it's trashable; it's a garbage bill; there is no way this bill could be amended to make it supportable. I urge the government and the opposition to think afresh about alternative responses to asylum seekers.
In recent years I moved a private member's bill that proposed a legislative framework for an alternative response to asylum seekers—one that was consistent with international law and relied on a genuine regional approach, overseen by the UNHCR, with quotas for countries to accept people from regional processing centres. That bill received no support from the coalition government at the time and no support from the Labor opposition at the time. But the point is that, until the government and the opposition start to genuinely consider alternative approaches, we will continue with this immoral and illegal policy framework based on deterrence and punishment.
There are so many better ways we could be doing this. To start with, we should stop regarding asylum seekers as a security challenge, a matter for Border Force, and understand that this is a global humanitarian challenge. As one of the richest, luckiest and most fortunate countries in the world, there is no country better placed than Australia to be a global leader in this space, a global leader in developing alternative responses to asylum seekers—responses that are consistent with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1951 Refugee Convention and our obligations under the Rome statute.
Every time we trash these international agreements, we dishonour the men and women who occupied these benches before us and signed up in good faith to these international agreements. We are an international pariah when it comes to our nation's response to asylum seekers. Indeed, it is a dark stain in this country's history book—a dark stain that will take a long time to erase, if it ever can be erased. But we could start in one small way tonight by voting down this bill. I call out to the Labor Party. Your supporters are expecting you to vote down this bill and, from the speeches, it sounds like you will. And I say to the government: why on earth are you progressing this unless you want to be cruel by design to the people who were coming to our country in good faith thinking that we are a rich, lucky and law-abiding country and we will give them refuge? And what do we do instead? We lock them up indefinitely. We take their phones away. We don't care about their mental health. If they're unfortunate enough to be on Manus Island or in Nauru in those camps—you call them open camps; I call them gulags—and to be sick, we are so cruel we won't even bring them to Australia for medical treatment.
I will end my remarks there. This bill does not have my support. It didn't in 2017, it doesn't tonight, and it never will.
(Quorum formed)
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (19:12): I rise tonight to contribute to the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020. I start my remarks tonight by thanking the people in my electorate who have written to me about this bill, who have raised their voices and, by extension, requested me to raise mine in this place and say for them that they can't understand the logic behind this bill. They can't understand why Australia is pursuing such a draconian overreach in regard to the management of people in our control and in our care. They have rightly pointed out the cruel nature of this bill.
Migration policy in this country over the last decade is a familiar story of this government overreaching and playing political games with our detention facilities and our migration system. But when we saw this bill rehashed—an old version of Peter Dutton's bill from 2017—we thought we would work constructively with the government. We thought as the Labor opposition that there are pretty extraordinary powers sought by the government and therefore we would seek to get an explanation and find out why these powers are necessary. Often there could be reasons and cases as to why the government's sought these pretty extraordinary powers. But, of course, there was no answer. There was no response from the government that justified the extraordinary powers that they sought to have as a result of this migration bill. The only logical conclusion to that is that this bill is not about a proportionate response from government but about cruelty and politics. Cruelty and politics are what are governing this bill and its creation.
I listened intently to the contributions of the member for Melbourne and the member for Clark. While I know that they in their lonesome offices really enjoy taking swipes at the Labor Party, I remind them that the Labor Party is opposing this bill and that the Labor Party took to the last election a record of reform that would have dramatically changed the way in which Australia treats people in care and treats those seeking asylum in this country. We would have removed indefinite detention and gotten people out of detention. We would have worked with New Zealand and other countries to set up regional processes to make sure that people weren't left languishing by themselves for years. We also would have got rid of temporary protection visas, improved the processing time for visas, increased our humanitarian intake and played a bigger role on the international stage. We would have completely transformed the way in which Australia handles these migration cases, so I really resent the politics from the Greens and the Independents, who are constantly trying to undermine Labor's reform in this place. We would have taken a very different approach, just like we did in the last parliament, when we introduced and worked with the crossbench on the medevac bill.
The story of the medevac bill is much like this one. The standards that Labor sought to enforce were not remarkable. We wanted to make sure that there was basic medical care for those in our power. With this bill, all we are saying is that detention centres are not prisons, that people in the care of Australia as a nation are not prisoners. If they commit a crime or there is a suspicion that they have committed a crime, do what you need to do with the powers that already exist, but that's not what this bill is about. This bill is a punitive measure to deny people the most basic of accessories, such as a mobile phone. What is this government afraid of—vulnerable people writing nasty things about them, texting nasty things about the Prime Minister or about the minister for immigration? It's hardly a sign of strength that a government would seek to take away such a basic human right as the right to communication and connection to the outside world from people who have not committed a crime, from people who have come to this country seeking our help.
As with the medevac bill, with this bill the government is simply seeking to play politics and to introduce cruel and unnecessary overreaching measures. To deny someone a mobile phone in detention seems heartless and cruel, but to deny medical attention to someone in this country—the Australia I have grown up with—seems foreign to all the things I hold dear about this country. It seems foreign to all the things I know as an Australian, where health care is a universal right, not something the government plays games with, depending on whether or not it feels like it needs to flex its political muscles on the day.
It's hardly surprising—as with this bill, where the government has no reason and no justification for these extraordinary powers—we heard after the medevac bill the mother of all scare campaigns unravelling. They said they needed to open up the Christmas Island detention centre. We all remember that. The government wasted $185 million to open up the Christmas Island detention centre. It was in the budget. What a waste of money. What a waste of resources. What a waste. To prove that there was no justification for the government to have opened the Christmas Island detention centre, who did the government send there? For the majority of time it has been a sad family of four, with a three-year-old girl and her five-year-old sister sitting in there by themselves with their parents, defenceless.
It is not a sign or a show of strength to take a family out of a community in regional Queensland and put them in the Christmas Island detention centre by themselves. It doesn't matter that the government wasted millions of dollars in setting up an unnecessary detention centre after the medevac bill embarrassment in the House of Representatives. It matters that they used it for a $185 million political exercise where the Prime Minister was seen doing press conferences, charging taxpayers thousands of dollars per minute to get photo ops near this empty detention centre on Christmas Island. We are better as a country and as a people than wasting millions of dollars on defenceless people. I think that we as Australians are better than spending millions of dollars during a pandemic to lock up people unnecessarily. In the middle of a pandemic, wasting millions of dollars locking up a family—surely we are better than taking away their mobile phones when they haven't committed a crime.
This bill isn't about the extraordinary powers that the government wants; this bill is about the government seeking extraordinary powers for no reason. This government had no reason to want to take away the mobile phones of people, who have committed no crime, other than to flex its muscles and play the politics of cruelty, which is its default game. It's hardly surprising, because the Minister for Home Affairs has form on this. He leads the department and the acting minister, who has been an acting minister for quite some time, in this reform. Maybe the Minister for Home Affairs is bored. Maybe he is looking forward to the November reshuffle when he will be moving over to Defence, as reported by many of the mainstream media outlets. Maybe he is looking to pack up the home affairs department and be shifted sideways. I don't know what's driving this. Maybe he wants one last hurrah in his role in charge of the immigration and detention centre before the Prime Minister shuffles him aside.
All I can say is that we in the Labor Party are not going to be governed by the politics of fear. We need to be bigger than that. We need to be bigger than that as a country, and we need a government that is bigger than that. We need a government who can stomach having things written about them by people in detention, people who have been left there unnecessarily for seven years—indefinite detention—and who don't have any idea of what the future holds for them. Surely we can say that (a) they deserve medical care and (b) while they are in our care they can have things like a mobile phone. I don't think that that's too much to ask. In fact I think these people should be taken out of detention as quickly as possible.
I will finish my contribution today by saying that at every single stage we have sought to work collaboratively and cooperatively, and sought to find answers as to why the government would want to introduce such draconian measures. But at every single stage the government hasn't provided answers. The only answer that really exists is that the government wants to play with people's lives and play cruel political games in order to make its political points. It's shameful, and I join my colleagues in the Labor Party in saying that we don't support this bill and that we hope for a day when a bit more decency and humanity comes to immigration detention and immigration policy in this country. I hope to work towards them in my time in this place.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (19:24): I am pleased to follow the member for Macnamara, and I commend him on his contribution to this debate. This bill, the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2020, allows the minister to prohibit or ban almost any item from use within an immigration detention facility. The things to be prohibited are not spelt out in the bill but will be listed in what is now a disallowable legislative instrument. Being a disallowable legislative instrument is in itself a backflip by the government and in particular by the minister, who, in the first bill that was introduced on this matter, wanted it to be a non-disallowable legislative instrument. That immediately implies that what the government wanted was to be able to make decisions in respect of these matters without ever being accountable to this parliament. It's a role of this parliament to have some oversight of matters as important as this. At least on that matter, I note that the government has now backflipped.
The Minister for Home Affairs and the minister for immigration already have extraordinary powers that exceed the powers of most other ministers in this place. The only reason the backflip occurred in terms of the instrument being disallowable was the scrutiny of this parliament and the scrutiny of a committee of this parliament. It is a fundamental role of the parliament which should never ever be diminished. To now know that the minister would have liked to have had even more powers than they currently have is something that concerns me deeply.
Concerns with the original bill had been raised by numerous bodies, including the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, the Settlement Council of Australia, the Kaldor Centre, Liberty Victoria, the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Law Council of Australia, the Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and the Refugee Council of Australia—just to name some. All of those bodies expressing concerns about this legislation immediately sends up red flags for me. I cannot for a moment believe that such bodies would raise concerns that are flippant and not worthy of the consideration of this parliament. Indeed, my understanding is that, of the 135 submissions that went to the Senate committee on this matter, only two were in support of this legislation. One was from the minister's own department and the other was from Serco, the operator of one of the facilities that we would be referring to. Notwithstanding the changes made to this legislation, which I accept are an improvement on the original bill, there are still serious concerns with what is proposed in this legislation. That is why I will be speaking and voting in support of the amendment moved by Labor.
The government's justification for the bill is the changing profile of the people in detention. At 31 March this year, my understanding is that, of the 1,373 people in closed immigration detention centres, 625, or 45 per cent, were detained due to section 501 character related visa cancellations; 512, or 37 per cent, were classed as illegal maritime rivals—in other words, refugees or asylum seekers; and, 238, or 17 per cent, were detained for other reasons, mainly related to non-criminal visa issue breaches—people who perhaps have overstayed their visas or have arrived illegally in other ways but who have not committed any criminal act against the laws of this country other than being here beyond their visa conditions. We are told that amongst the 45 per cent of the section 501 character related visa cancellations there are child sex offenders; perpetrators of violent crime, including domestic violence; murderers; and even drug offenders. There would be little or no public sympathy for that cohort. Any measures considered necessary to manage their behaviour and ensure public safety would have not only widespread public support but also my support. However, the measures in this bill are not limited to the worst of the section 501 visa cancellations. They apply to all persons in detention, including asylum seekers—
The SPEAKER: I'll just ask the member for Makin to resume his seat. He'll have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed. On indulgence, I'm going to call the Manager of Opposition Business before we go to the adjournment debate.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (19:29): As we've recorded on previous occasions, which way the members of the major political parties would have voted if they were absent because of the pandemic is clear because of the pairing arrangements. I was contacted this morning and neglected to rise at the time to inform you that for the suspension motions and the related gag motions the member for Melbourne indicated and wanted it placed on the record that he would have voted with the opposition on those relative divisions.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. It's important that all of that be recorded.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:30): It now being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Gene Therapy
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (19:30): I was born on 23 April 1953. Two days after I was born James Watson and Francis Crick described in the journal Nature on 25 April—Anzac Day—the structure of the DNA helix which carries our genetic material. The world had some understanding of inheritance patterns through the work of many scientists before then. I'm sure you all remember the familiar name of Gregor Mendel, the Austrian monk, who described Mendelian inheritance and many scientists from the middle of the 19th century onwards worked on different inheritance patterns and genetics. However, the dramatic explosion in our knowledge of human genetics came following the Watson and Crick discoveries.
In my over 40-year medical career there's been a huge increase in knowledge of genetics and other major advances along the way such as the completion of the Human Genome Project in 2003, two years ahead of schedule, which has further dramatically advanced our knowledge. When I started my medical career the cause and genetic markers for most of the genetic disorders was unknown. Even relatively common disorders such as epilepsy were often described as idiopathic, meaning 'no cause found' when in fact many had genetic causes which have subsequently been discovered.
Most of my medical career was involved with discovery of the causes of these genetic disorders, and the finding of the genetic markers were found for many of the severe metabolic disorders; some of the fatal diseases of childhood, such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy, as I've mentioned; mitochondria disorders; thalassaemia; and many other disorders.
In fact the 21st century was the century of finding the cause medically. However, the 21st century is now the century of finding the cure. Australia is leading the world in many of these treatments. My friend Professor John Rascoe AO, head of gene and stem cell therapy at the Centenary Institute at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and Sydney university, has developed gene therapy for a certain form of haemophilia which has dramatically changed the clinical course and prognosis. He and his team are working on gene therapy for other haematological disorders, such as thalassemia, the more common forms of haemophilia and other genetically directed treatments for some of the cancers, particularly in the rare cancer field. We're developing and using genetically directed treatments such as CAR T-cell therapy for some of the cancers in adult life, particularly haematological cancers.
These treatments are now available at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney and at the Peter MacCallum Institute in Victoria, as well as the Royal Melbourne Children's Hospital. The cost of these treatments is huge. As an example, the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy with the use of a new medication called SPINRAZA costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
However, I wish to specifically mention Duchenne muscular dystrophy and the Save our Sons organisation, which is supporting children who have a fatal form of muscular dystrophy called Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It is inherited by males and carried by females. This disorder is uniformly fatal. I know we're not allowed to use props, but they have spent a lot of time and effort developing their five-year plan which we hope to launch tomorrow via Zoom as we couldn't have it physically in Parliament House. It's a very worthy organisation. This disorder is fatal, as I've said, to the boys who have it. Unfortunately, there is no specific treatment. What we need now is time and a cure. We have found the gene marker and I'm sure that eventually we will find a cure, but like many of these disorders and many rare diseases we need to put effort into developing a research program that will find a cure. I'm confident that in the 21st century we'll find a cure for many of these disorders. They are terrible disorders, but we have the ability to cure and it's time to move on for that cure.
I'd encourage every member to support Save Our Sons and to tune into our Zoom meeting that we're going to have tomorrow to launch their five-year plan. I thank the House for its indulgence.
Robertson Electorate: JobKeeper Payment
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (19:35): I rise to speak in support of the Morrison government's JobKeeper program. It's an initiative that has benefited thousands of hardworking people in my electorate of Robertson.
Since its introduction JobKeeper has supported more than 990,000 businesses and over 3.5 million employees Australia wide. In doing so it has injected more than $42 billion into Australian households and businesses to help fast track our nation's economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic. I'm really proud to be part of a government which, through JobKeeper and other economic initiatives, is helping to keep our national economy afloat. A big part of this is ensuring that our small and family businesses remain open, including the more than 47 per cent of enterprises across the Central Coast local government area that are currently using the JobKeeper payment to keep their employees in jobs.
I've heard from many of these businesses about what this program means to them—businesses like South End Social, which is a really great newish cafe in Gosford. It has 12 staff on JobKeeper, and it's one of many, many new cafes which have been opening around the Central Coast over the last couple of years. The co-owner of the cafe, Michael Griffiths, said: 'Without the JobKeeper payment my cafe would still be closed and I'd have to have let go of my hardworking staff. It's the sole reason I can keep my cafe open and running today. The day this payment was announced I, and many other people in the hospitality sector, breathed a huge sigh of relief, knowing that there was light at the end of the tunnel.'
Rod Dever, from the Gosford/Erina and Coastal Chamber of Commerce, said that the JobKeeper payment has been a lifeline to many small businesses. He said that not only has it ensured employees have an income during this difficult time but it has also kept people engaged in their employment and has maintained their valuable skills and training. Bill Jackson, from Ettalong Diggers, actually rang me to express his appreciation for the JobKeeper initiative. He said that it had been a massive help for his local club, particularly during lockdown when they were unable to open. Bill said that it's really given his club the confidence to plan into the future and to see a way out of the coronavirus pandemic.
These are just some of the many examples of businesses in my electorate of Robertson who are benefiting from the JobKeeper program. But the government recognises that Australia's recovery is still in its early stages and that several businesses and individuals remain significantly affected by the economic downturn caused by COVID-19. That's why, despite plans for JobKeeper to run for an initial six-month period, the government announced that the program would be extended for a further six months until 28 March 2021. Our recent amendments have also ensured that the program continues to be available to those who need it and that Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies have access to the information that they need to best tailor policies in response to the continued impact of coronavirus.
The extent of the program has been particularly important to those businesses that simply cannot shut down. This includes businesses like the very important Australian Reptile Park in Somersby, where the park director, Tim Faulkner, explained that closing was simply not an option, given the many animals that rely on them for care, day in and day out. Tim said he really felt protected by JobKeeper and that it was a real game changer for him and his staff. An employee at the park, Liz, said it was wonderful to know that she'd be able to continue to care for the wildlife which brings so much joy to those who visit the park and which is also important to conservation efforts.
Another crucial service that's been supported by JobKeeper is CrocStars Swim School, which provides swimming lessons for children with disability. The owner, Natalie, said to me that she had to close the swim school for 14 weeks, but because of the financial backing that JobKeeper provided she was able to maintain contact with her staff. She has recently reopened and she is again able to offer classes that provide students with important life skills and social interaction.
These examples highlight the tenacity and dedication of so many Central Coast business owners this year. I really want to thank each and every one of them and all of those who have not been mentioned tonight as well for adapting to recent challenges and for the crucial role that our local businesses play in creating jobs for our local community. I know the government will continue doing all it can to support small and family businesses, so important to my electorate on the Central Coast. Our policies are not set-and-forget, and we will continue to monitor the evolving impacts of COVID-19.
Scullin Electorate: COVID-19
Mr GILES (Scullin) (19:40): It's so important that this parliament is deliberating right now, going about its work on behalf of all Australians, and it's particularly important that the parliament can hear the voices of the communities that make up the city that you and I both love—that I think all of us in the chamber love—Melbourne. Mr Speaker, I want to thank you and the President of the Senate for the efforts you have undertaken to ensure that some of our colleagues who weren't as fortunate as we are to be here can speak on behalf of their constituents. It does this parliament and our democracy a great service.
I've found, in this period of social distancing and harder lockdowns, different conversations with the people I'm privileged and proud to represent. I've found them particularly interested, in this sitting of the parliament, in the issues that we have been deliberating on. I have been asking them, as I'm sure other members have been doing, the things they would like conveyed in this place on their behalf. I had hoped I would be able to celebrate with you and many of my constituents a good result in the football yesterday, but we will pass over that. There are things that are within our control.
The main issue that my constituents have been concerned about—in addition to the supports for businesses, a wage subsidy that works and support at an adequate level for people who are not presently working—has been, of course, the issue of aged care. I have had the opportunity to raise this in the House on many occasions, but I want to again put on the record to those constituents who've contacted me that there is no more important issue for me while I am here than to see justice done in a retrospective sense so that we can understand what went wrong but also proactively take this opportunity, as the shadow minister and the Leader of the Labor Party have sought to do in this place, to set out a template that treats elderly Australians with the dignity and respect that they deserve, that they are entitled to and that we have neglected to offer them.
The other thing that I want to do on behalf of the people I represent is to acknowledge the frontline workers who have done so much for all of us in so many fields—in retail, in logistics. I'm personally very grateful to teachers, and I know others are to early learning workers right now. All these people are making our society function in these unparalleled and unprecedented times. Particularly, I want to acknowledge healthcare workers, the extraordinary work they have been doing and the limited but important contact I have had with their work in the communities I represent. I think of the geriatricians, the palliative care teams, the doctors in training, those in general medicine and of course their wonderful nursing colleagues and all health workers at the Northern Hospital in Epping. I'll give a shout-out to my sister-in-law, Alison Giles, for the work that she's done and her efforts to connect me to the challenges that workers are facing, many of which I'd never thought of. I've been astounded at the work and the thought that's gone into servicing communities, in relation not just to issues connected to COVID but those other challenges, those other health issues that can't be ignored while we deal with the critical issues of the pandemic. Supporting people in the COVID wards when the nurse or the physician or the health worker is clad in PPE is very difficult and very challenging, particularly with people who may have afflictions as well as the coronavirus. It is particularly challenging for those for whom English is not their first language, where difficult conversations are being had, often separated from family, or with family connection only possible by means of FaceTime. These are extraordinary challenges that are being imposed on our healthcare workers.
I want to acknowledge in this place how they have risen to those challenges, and also to share the story of a 34-year-old doctor, Yianni Efstathiadis—and I hope he'll forgive my pronunciation—an emergency doctor at the Northern, who says he feels lucky to be alive after spending days on a ventilator in intensive care. He started experiencing fever, muscle aches and lethargy and was tested for the virus, but his first test came back negative. A second test confirmed that he had COVID. About five days after going into isolation, the symptoms were more severe. He went first to hospital and then into intensive care, with a tube inserted, battling the virus in ICU, to come out the other side. He has a warning to those who aren't taking it seriously yet: this is a serious disease, it's there and it can potentially kill you. In thanking him, I ask everyone to take heed of his warning.
Water
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (19:45): For the better part of this year, the efforts of government have focused on an unprecedented public health and economic crisis. While we're continuing our fight against COVID-19, we continue to ensure that other important issues are not neglected. In June, I spoke about the work I've been doing at a local level in relation to the management of water resources in my electorate of Mallee and across the Murray-Darling Basin more broadly. I informed the House of my visit to Dominic Sergi's property in Red Cliffs. Dominic is an engineer by trade and now grows a variety of table grapes.
Hearing from local producers is a priority for me. I know that the expertise and knowledge in my community is where I gain my greatest insights. That's why I convened a roundtable discussion with the minister for water, Keith Pitt, along with stakeholders, including farmers and growers, industry peak bodies and water management authorities. Many involved in the roundtable, me included, were happy to hear that the minister is focused on implementing engineering solutions to manage supply and deliverability issues in the water 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.
The Murray-Darling Basin is an extraordinarily complex system, and solutions to the challenges we face require extensive intergovernmental cooperation, stakeholder consultation and compromise. Nonetheless, there are identifiable policies that can and should be implemented that will increase community confidence and improve the performance of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
In its five-year assessment of the plan, the Productivity Commission made several recommendations to government. Among them was a call to reform the structure of the MDBA to manage its conflicting roles. Currently, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority supports basin governments to manage shared water resources and joint natural resource management programs, thereby assisting basin governments to implement the plan. However, it is also seen as the regulator of the plan, as it's required to ensure compliance with the plan and make final judgements on the success of project implementation under the plan. In effect, the MDBA's current structure allows it to mark its own homework. For the purposes of transparency and credibility, change is required. We need one body to deliver the plan and one body to enforce the plan's requirements.
I know this measure is supported by dairy farmers in my electorate—as Andrew Leahy, a dairy farmer from Murrabit, has told me. Andrew is one of many who has said that we need to separate policy and operations within the MDBA to ensure that the authority isn't checking its own work.
Another issue raised by many farmers, growers, organisations and community members from my electorate, time and time again, is that no more water can legitimately be recovered from the consumptive pool. The 450-gigalitre recovery target needs to be met through engineering solutions and efficiency measures that do not have an impact on the consumptive pool. Farmers cannot afford more water being taken. We need a clear approach to meeting water recovery targets so that our critical industries and basin communities are protected, and we need a demonstrated commitment that this water will not be recovered through buybacks. Any further buybacks would have a devastating impact on the social and economic fabric of our basin communities, which is something we in Mallee cannot support. A strategy for the implementation of water recovery projects needs to be outlined which prioritises efficiency measures that do not result in adverse socioeconomic impacts for basin communities and their industries.
We owe it to our farmers, irrigators and drought affected communities to restore confidence in the complex system that governs the management of Australia's water resources. Following the Productivity Commission's recommendation to split the MDBA and restating the federal government's commitment to achieve water recovery through efficiency measures and not buybacks are two means through which confidence in the plan can be restored. I have been discussing these options for some time with residents of my electorate and with the minister for water, Keith Pitt. I look forward to continuing these discussions for the benefit of my basin communities.
Coalition Government
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (19:50): I want to talk about a jumper that was very dear to my heart. It was a jumper that I'd had for many years. I wore it the first time I flew to Canberra as the federal member for Perth. But it had started to unravel. It had holes everywhere. It was good-quality Australian wool, I should say, but it had started to unravel. I wore it out to lunch as I holidayed at home this year with my wife in Yallingup. We went out to a winery, and she was very disappointed I had worn this jumper that really just wasn't up to the task anymore. So, firstly, I'll apologise to Jess for wearing it. But Jess was right. She made me throw it out. While I miss it, she was right. When something starts to unravel, you should throw it out.
That brings me to what I want to talk about tonight, which is this government. It has truly started to unravel.
Government members interjecting—
Mr GORMAN: You were enjoying it up until then! It has truly started to unravel this month. It has become a one-man band, and not the good type of one-man band like Bob Dylan or Kevin Parker but more of a solo artist in the vein of Peter Andre. This government is falling apart at the worst possible time.
I saw on my Instagram feed today a meme from the Treasurer. It's good to know what he's been working on: he's been working on that meme—I'm sure for days and days—saying that he wants a road out in Victoria. That made me think. Where is his road map out? Where is his road map on debt? Where is his road map on jobs? Where is his road map on child care? Where is his road map on aged care? I'll give this piece of free advice to the Treasurer: from time to time, it wouldn't hurt to treat premiers of this country with respect.
When it comes to aged care, we have seen a national tragedy occur over recent months. With a tragedy like this, it is no wonder that the Australian people have lost confidence in the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. John Curtin had Ben Chifley by his side, and Scott Morrison is standing side by side with Senator Colbeck. The minister has walked away from scrutiny. If he's not sacked, in my opinion he should do the decent thing and resign, because he has failed to develop a plan for our aged-care system. He has today released another funding increase that doesn't deal with any of the fundamental long-term challenges that his own royal commission has told him he needs to be addressing. The excessive waits for homecare packages are something that my electorate is well and truly over when it comes to this government. Labor last week released a very clear plan on what could be done to fix aged care now: minimum staffing levels, more homecare packages, more staff training and, of course, what every aged-care worker deserves given the incredibly important work they are doing for us: a secure job.
But, when it comes to training and secure jobs for people, this government's only plan in the education space is a knowledge tax—a tax on people who want to go to university. The Chancellor of the University of Western Australia said that this government's knowledge tax would actually lead to the University of Western Australia having less income—three to four per cent less income—because of the inappropriate increasing of fees for certain students. I've had the Minister for Education try and shut me down when I've spoken in this place. When I tried to speak about the hard border, he got up and shut me down. When the Leader of the Opposition today tried to get up and speak, the Minister for Education shut him down. Now he is trying to shut down our knowledge institutions by whacking a huge amount of fees on the young people of tomorrow. I should recognise that there are intellectuals. There's the member for Hughes—someone who well and truly listens to the experts when it comes to health policy!
This might be a shock to some of those in the chamber who come from other states, but in Western Australia we don't have politics in our local councils—people don't stand as party representatives. But last week The 500 Club, an affiliated entity of the Liberal Party, thought it was appropriate to run a fundraiser off the back of the Perth lord mayoral election. This was completely unacceptable. We've just had a two-year inquiry into the City of Perth looking at the inappropriate conduct of councillors. For The 500 Club to try and fundraise off the back— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Victoria
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (19:55): Victorians are doing it tough right now. It's been a brooding winter. It's week 4 of stage 4, where people can only leave their homes for the supermarket and for exercise for an hour a day. Victorians are getting fines just for putting their bins out between the 8 pm and 5 am curfew.
As the Prime Minister correctly said, Victorians need hope and now is the time for reassuring leadership. The Andrews government has all but canned parliament, so there is no scrutiny. Compare the pair. We are here. The federal COVID-19 oversight committee is chaired by the opposition, with MPs from all sides. The Victorian COVID-19 oversight committee is chaired and dominated by Labor. Accountability isn't just about just politics; it's about stopping bad decisions being replicated. Instead, we get a premier talking down and issuing dictates from his bully pulpit and sneaky deals to extend the state of emergency without explanation.
Victorians know the virus is the enemy, and it's contemptuous to say it will all be over as soon as 'we obey the rules'. We did. It was your botched hotel quarantine that caused the second wave, and Victorians are paying the price. The cost of Australia's biggest public policy failure is real. According to the VCCC, the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, there's been a 30 per cent reduction in cancer reporting. A UNSW study found that wholesale lockdowns cost twice as many lives as they save, and, after the first month, it compounds. Tragically, there has been a 33 per cent increase in children presenting at hospitals with self-harm injuries compared to last year. Last week Lifeline had 1,000 calls in a day for the first time in its history. The Goldstein office has been inundated with stories. Self-funded retirees are struggling. Teenagers are missing rites of passage. Elizabeth McKinnon reached out, concerned about her sister, who has pre-existing depression and, without in-person support or companionship, is getting worse. As Elizabeth said, 'Where is the sense of hope for someone like my sister?'
The cost of Victoria's second lockdown is estimated to be between $300 million and $400 million every day. These aren't just numbers; they're real people's lives, jobs and opportunities. Andrew from Hampton has run a successful sole-trader IT business for 20 years. He has described how his hours have slowed from five days to three days and now vanished entirely along with his capacity to pay his mortgage. Small businesses are held together by a string. JobKeeper is a lifeline, but other bills and debts keep mounting. Many people have found themselves underemployed or unemployed for the first time in their lives. JobSeeker helps, but nothing replaces the dignity, the purpose and the independence of work.
Victoria's situation exposes the fallacy of handing control over to technocrats that can only see problems through a singular lens. We should listen to experts, but it's accountable politicians who must weigh competing considerations and take responsibility. There is no risk-free solution to the suppression of COVID-19. We cannot let fear dictate us living our lives.
Understandably, highlighting the cost of the Victorian government's failures invites the obvious question: what would we have done differently? In normal times, we manage risk; we don't avoid it. We work to build up individual community and system resilience to confront risks. This is not a normal time, and there were gaps to our capacity to do so. It's why the first lockdown did have some logic. Individuals didn't know how to protect themselves. Community organisations were underprepared, and the health system lacked critical equipment. We used that time to help individual, community and system capacity.
Now, the logical thing is to implement sustainable measures, such as face masks, social distancing, venue registrations, capacity limits and working from home, if you can. What we shouldn't be doing is immorally trading away younger Australians' opportunity tomorrow for the false security of today. Victorians need hope. As the Treasurer said, 'Victoria needs a road out.' Canberra has got your back, Victoria. There are brighter days ahead—they are coming—but we have to accept and understand the responsibility that we all have to be part of the solution, not seek the false security of lockdowns in perpetuity.
House adjourned at 20 : 00
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Vasta) took the chair at 10:30.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Vasta) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
North and West Melbourne City Deal Plan
Mr GILES (Scullin) (10:30): The northern and western suburbs of Melbourne are the fastest-growing parts of Australia's fastest-growing city, but their infrastructure needs have been sadly and sorely neglected under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments. So it was with a sense of optimism that we heard the prospect of a City Deal for the north and west suburbs announced quite sometime ago. But it has not been progressed. It is simply an idea in search of its expression—very much in tribute to the broader conduct of the Prime Minister, who is much more interested in the slogan than the outcome.
The communities of Melbourne have taken a very different tack. Last week the North and West Melbourne City Deal Plan was proposed by local governments, universities, business and community organisations to unlock the economic potential and social needs of these communities—communities deeply affected by the pandemic, including in my electorate of Scullin. Even before COVID-19, the north and west metro-local government areas had lower job availability, greater socioeconomic disadvantage and the least infrastructure funding on a population growth basis within the greater Melbourne area. The recession we are now in will only increase and exacerbate social inequality and accelerate the growing divide that is unfortunately characterising Melbourne. The proposal before us here seeks to create new opportunities to attract investment and stimulate employment by integrating public transport to key industrial, health and education precincts and employment hubs.
What is remarkable in this exercise is the collaboration of 13 local governments, two universities and a large number of community organisations working together, grounded in local understanding, for a shared vision for our areas—as a City Deal should be; a genuine partnership. I take this opportunity to thank all those groups in my community that have contributed to this body of work—the City of Whittlesea, NORTH Link, the Northern Councils Alliance and La Trobe University.
Telling the story of an area helps focus community engagement at the strategic level and canvas options to enable the community to contribute to. It's not just supporting individual projects. To meet the challenge of reconstruction we need real partnerships where all levels of government work with and listen to the communities and to private sector. This deal plan warrants serious consideration by the government and the minister as a major contribution to the debate about Melbourne's future and our wider economic recovery, because it has come from the bottom up—from the grassroots and from the communities worst affected by COVID. Deals can't continue to neglect our suburbs, especially our fastest-growing ones. It's fine for Minister Tudge to announce a north-west Melbourne City Deal, but it's time for him to make it a reality by listening to the voices of the community, including the voices of the private sector.
Stanton, Professor Richard AO
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:33): I want to acknowledge the passing last Tuesday of Professor Dick Stanton AO. Dick was a distant relative by marriage. His wife Alison was my grandmother's first cousin. Alison was the librarian and Dick was the Professor of Geology at the University of New England. They had a beautiful home. I remember when I was in year 11 my parents giving me a tour of all the universities in my home state. We had a very memorable dinner with Dick and Alison, and they encouraged me to go to UNE and live in Armidale. After Alison died, Dick moved to Canberra to be close to the rest of his family.
Dick's work recognised the role of volcanism and sedimentation in the formation of new ore deposits and the physics and chemistry involved in the concentration of copper, zinc and lead in volcanic lavas. While I was running the Menzies Research Centre, Dick reached out to me and encouraged me to do some work on nuclear power and nuclear waste. Dick believed that Australia's geological stability meant that South Australia was the right place for a nuclear waste storage facility and industry and that it was possible to convert nuclear waste into silicone-like substances in order to store them in the ground.
Dick and I maintained a lively correspondence, and I enjoyed having a meal with him at his daughter Marion's home a couple of years ago. We kept trying to have a meal this year but it didn't happen, although I did send him a copy of Sir Robert Menzies 'Forgotten People' speeches, which he enjoyed reading and passed them on to his granddaughter.
I was very proud that I was related, even my marriage, to one of the finest geologists Australia has produced. Even at the age of 94, his mind was sharp, and he could converse, offering original insights on any topic.
Professor Stanton completed his Bachelor of Science at what is now the University of New England. He worked in mineral exploration in mines in Broken Hill, in Far North Queensland and at Burraga. He then took up teaching fellowships at the University of Sydney, where he completed his PhD on regional patterns of mineralisation and was involved in the first systemic geological mapping of the Solomon Islands.
In 1975, following a postdoctoral fellowship at Queen's University in Ontario, he was appointed Professor of Geology at the University of New England and then emeritus professor in 1986. During his time at UNE he took sabbaticals to Harvard, on a Fulbright Award, and Oxford. He was elected to the Australian Academy of Sciences in 1975 for his original contributions to the genesis of ore deposits. He also served on the council of the academy from 1987 to 1990 and as vice-president from 1989 to 1990.
Professor Stanton received too many awards to mention, from his first in 1974, the President's Award of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, to his most recent, being elected an Inaugural Fellow of the Royal Society of New South Wales in 2009. He was appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in 1986.
Professor Dick Stanton will be greatly missed, and our condolences go to his daughters, Marion and Ruth, and his grandchildren, Ben, Emma, Sarah, Kate, Julia and Alice. Sadly, Dick's son died five years ago, which left him devastated. May Dick's memory be a blessing to all those who knew him.
Macarthur Electorate: Infrastructure
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (10:36): 'Overdevelopment' is an ugly word that paints a picture of high-rise buildings, urban sprawl, a lack of green space and a failure of government to provide adequate services and infrastructure. My electorate of Macarthur is being overdeveloped. Macarthur lies on the outskirts of Sydney and can be described as an outer metropolitan hub that has a rural charm. Indeed, it was the birthplace of Australia's wool industry, with Elizabeth and John Macarthur—and also a very big dairy area—and still is. Unfortunately, the charm is under threat.
As I've indicated time and time again, my region lacks access to local and stable jobs. Many of my constituents are made to travel several hours each day just to commute to and from work, taking away from family time. They are made to cram into overly crowded public transport, if it can be accessed, in the limited accessible places, and sit in bumper-to-bumper traffic on our congested roads. We lie well outside the limits of the city, yet the government appears intent on turning my community into another urban jungle.
Each and every month more and more people move into Macarthur. However, they're not able to access local services and good, stable local employment opportunities. Many of them work in the gig economy. Many of them are subject to the travesties of the labour hire market. Unfortunately, that puts a lot of stress on families and on children in particular.
Developers will attempt to build high-rise buildings and urban sprawl wherever they can, and they'll cram out whatever limited green space they can. They and the New South Wales Liberal government are failing to provide the infrastructure needed to support our growth in population. Development, of course, is by no means a bad thing, but when it occurs in a rampant, unchecked manner, as it is in my community, it has a huge effect on people's quality of life. I do not want to see the loss of viable green space in my community, and I will not stand for Macarthur's skyline being turned into an eyesore.
Our local community is in desperate need of government investment if it is to recover in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our region is screaming out for investment in desperately needed infrastructure, yet nothing is happening. The struggling workforce and local businesses would greatly benefit from government investment in major infrastructure projects, in jobs, in transport, and in housing, particularly social housing. The mass development that is occurring in south-west Sydney cannot continue to occur unchecked.
We need government to do its part in adequately planning for and managing the present and future needs of communities. Development, where necessary, ought to be occurring along transport corridors and around public transport hubs and railway stations. Macarthur's most rapidly developing suburbs are at present missing out.
Students' Mental Health
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (10:39): I'd like to acknowledge the wonderful year 12 students in my electorate of Reid, who have just completed trials and will soon be undertaking their Higher School Certificate. Completing final school exams is a very stressful time for our young people, and this year, more so than ever, it's been particularly stressful because of coronavirus. There have been disruptions to classes and routines. There has been home schooling and family breakdown, and parents have lost jobs. All sorts of difficult situations at home have made it particularly difficult, and of course students have been missing key milestones, like graduation ceremonies and formals. I understand this is very disappointing to the class of 2020. However, I do hope that these unprecedented circumstances caused by the coronavirus have made the class of 2020 more resilient and closer together.
As an educational and developmental psychologist, I am passionate about the wellbeing of young people and their mental health. I worked for many years helping young people and families deal with everyday problems, but I've also treated young people with common mental health problems like anxiety and depression. It's a tragic statistic that suicide remains a leading cause of death among people aged 15 to 24. In the last year, we've seen a number of young people from Sydney's schools take their own lives. Most recently, Claudia Neale, an 18-year-old from Sydney in her final year of school, took her own life, and her parents, Fiona and Matt Neale, bravely shared her story in the hope other parents are aware of the importance of having ongoing conversations with their daughters or sons. Professor Ian Hickie, Director of the Brain and Mind Centre at the University of Sydney, talks about mental wealth, the economics of prevention and early intervention in mental health.
I am very proud to be part of the Morrison government—a government that puts mental health front and centre. The Morrison government has directed over $500 million since the start of this year to expand resources and prevention strategies for young people of vulnerable mental health. We've strengthened the headspace network and, in June this year, the government directed a further $24.2 million to headspace to reduce wait times and ensure that young people are getting appointments when they need them. We want to encourage young people to seek the support when they need it. Right now, many school leavers will be considering their options for the future. It is a difficult time, but we must remember that there's always hope. They should be focusing on growth sectors, like construction, science, technology, psychology, health care and education. There are many exciting opportunities ahead for students preparing for further study and training, and I feel confident that they will find their way.
McNamara, Mr Neil
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (10:42): In the early hours of Saturday morning, the Hunter region lost one of the most significant political leaders in its history. Neil McNamara was 97 years old. Neil served on the both the Patrick Plains and the Singleton council for a total of 43 years, most of that time as shire president and mayor. His civic duties did not end there. Neil was chairman of Energy Australia, chairman of the Hunter Regional Association of Councils, a member of the Hunter region tourism association and a member of both the Newcastle and the Upper Hunter Beyond 2000 Committees. In 1984, Neil's commitment to his local region was recognised with an Order of Australia award. He was granted freedom-of-the-shire status by Singleton Shire Council and is a member of the Singleton Hall of Fame. Throughout all of this, Neil was magnificently supported by his wife, Joan, who left us a short time ago. He is now reunited with the love of his life.
A generous, wise and humble dairy farmer, with the most exquisite speaking note and tone, Neil enjoyed enormous support in his community. He had that rare talent of being able to speak like a politician without sounding like one! Neil McNamara transformed Singleton. From the early 1970s, it began its progression from a relatively sleepy agricultural economy to a coalmining region bursting with energy. Under Neil's leadership, Singleton took a very deliberate decision to embrace the enormous investment on offer from those hoping to mine our rich coal seams. It was not an easy decision and not one without political, environmental and economic risk, but it was the right one. It was a decision which has delivered wealth and jobs for the shire and, indeed, the whole region.
Both my father and I had the great pleasure of working with Neil as federal members. We were also great mates. Neil McNamara was a significant person in my life, and I am fortunate to have had him in it. I will miss his phone calls, which would typically come after a television interview, and his generous approval of whatever I said. These days I think the word 'legend' is too liberally used as a descriptor for many, but to use it to describe Neil McNamara is absolutely the correct thing to do. Neil McNamara was an absolute legend. Our thoughts and prayers are with his wonderful family, and we bid Neil McNamara farewell this coming Friday.
Manufacturing
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (10:45): To get behind Australian manufacturers so they can unlock opportunities and create local jobs, we first need to understand the challenges they face. Recently I had the opportunity to connect with Tracy and the team at Plustec. Tracy, who's the owner and managing director, and her team make thermal double-glazed windows and doors in Emu Plains in my electorate of Lindsay. It was great to hear Plustec is one of the many local businesses applying for their Australian Made accreditation. Tracy used the instant asset write-off to purchase the machinery they need to construct and assemble their high-quality product onsite. As an innovative and competitive local business making an outstanding Australian-made product, Tracy understands the obstacles facing local manufacturers on the ground. She is exactly the type of person we need to have contributing to the new era of advanced manufacturing in Western Sydney. That's why I asked Tracy to be part of my advancing manufacturing task force.
The advancing manufacturing task force will connect with industry leaders and stakeholders in local manufacturing, education and business to promote initiatives that increase and improve manufacturing in Australia. We will advocate for existing and emerging Australian manufacturers and deliver practical recommendations to bring more manufacturing opportunities, particularly advanced manufacturing in Western Sydney. We have members from Western Sydney TAFE, the Sydney Science Park, the Western Sydney University, the Royal Institution of Australia, Plustec, Pandrol, Napean Community College and SpanSet Australia. I brought these members together to tackle challenges like the cost of manufacturing in Australia; lowering the cost of energy and inland freight; levelling the playing field for Australian businesses and protecting their IP from theft and from foreign competitors; and increasing awareness of the importance of buying Australian Made. Before coronavirus, the cheapest option was often the most convenient. Now we need to capitalise on our ability in Australia to compete on quality and value. We need to harness that momentum and the community groundswell of support to make the choice to buy Australian Made and actively support local jobs.
We want businesses to take advantage of the government's support through grants, and particularly apprenticeships, so we can train our kids to take on the jobs of the future. Young people may not know where a career in advanced manufacturing could lead them. We want to remove the barriers that kids face, opening new pathways for education that can include TAFE, university and apprenticeships so they can access these emerging industries. And it's not just young people. This week is Adult Learners Week, because we know learning doesn't stop at any age. We want to open these pathways for everyone and create jobs across the community.
Aged Care
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (10:48): We must always remember that it's our seniors who built this nation. They worked hard, raised their families and paid their taxes. We have a duty as a nation to ensure that every older Australian is treated with dignity and respect and we must ensure they can access the services that they need when they require them. Instead the Morrison government's crisis in aged care has shown how incompetent they are in protecting our elderly. This government was warned by experts that our already troubled aged-care system was vulnerable in the pandemic. They were warned and didn't act, and the consequences are tragic. Every day we hear of new COVID infections in aged care—more than 1,000 active cases and 412 deaths in residential aged care.
We've heard from the royal commission that evidence was ignored, that plans weren't put in place and that these issues could have been prevented. This from a government that shamefully cut $1.7 billion from the aged care sector. We're seeing the results of those cuts right across the board, and these cuts are hurting some of the most vulnerable in our community. This government is a disgrace when it comes to aged care. Their legacy will be their incompetence—$1.7 billion in cuts, more than 100,000 Australians waiting for home-care packages, 1,000 active COVID cases and, tragically, 412 deaths in our nursing homes. This government has absolutely no plan for aged care. But Labor does. Some of our suggestions include minimum staffing levels in residential care; reducing the home-care package waiting lists so more people could stay in their homes longer; and ensuring transparency and accountability of funding to support high-quality care and better training for staff, including on infection control.
It's not just the government's aged care incompetence that's hurting our older Australians. This government's plan to freeze the age pension at current rates will severely impact our seniors. The government has refused to increase the pension and has said it would keep it at the current rate with no indexation. This is shameful. Most other payments, including the disability support pension and the carer payment, will not be indexed either. In my electorate of Richmond across the New South Wales North Coast there are more than 25,000 aged pensioners. There are also more than 7,400 disability support pensioners and over 2,200 locals who receive the carer payment, who will also have their payments frozen. Cutting the household income of our pensioners is a cruel act by a cruel government. Pensioners have been facing increasing costs of health, dental, energy and grocery bills for years now. Now what's happening? The government is cutting their pensions.
We have a duty as a nation to ensure that every older Australian is treated with respect and dignity. This government must ensure that our pensioners receive the support and services they need and deserve. This government has failed our pensioners, and its absolute incompetence has resulted in this tragedy in the aged-care sector. It is a shameful act by a shameful government that cut funding in aged care. The result is these tragic deaths that we are seeing right throughout the sector. They should take responsibility.
Wide Bay Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (10:51): The New South Wales town of Gunning is 244 kilometres from the Sydney GPO along the National Highway. Gunning is bypassed by a four-lane divided highway. In Victoria, 235 kilometres from Melbourne's GPO, plans are underway to duplicate the National Highway to Stawell. In Gippsland, 216 kilometres from the GPO, federal funding is going towards a 43-kilometre duplication of the Princes Highway around Sale, which isn't even part of the National Highway. Why it is that in regional areas of these other eastern states the National Highway and the Princes Highway are updated with four-lane divided highways, but in Queensland, 232 kilometres from the Brisbane GPO, the National Highway is not? You can't put a price on human lives, but that's exactly what the state and federal government will be doing if they impose their low-cost proposal for a two-lane bypass of Tiaro in Wide Bay on the Bruce Highway. The $107 million proposed design is already killing Queenslanders. The two-lane proposal doesn't meet the highest possible road safety standards and it does not meet community expectations. Two lanes of high-speed traffic travelling head on is a recipe for disaster. Even if a barrier separating the lanes is added, a two-lane design will not last the test of time. Vehicles break down, some move slowly, and wide loads cause traffic to bank up, all potentially closing, clogging and congesting the two lane route, frustrating emergency services and wasting precious minutes when they're trying to save a life.
This is a national highway connecting rural and regional towns to major cities and major centres. It should be built to the highest standard. If four lanes is good enough for the non-national Princes Highway, it is essential for the national Bruce Highway at Tiaro. In 1998 the state and federal governments funded the Gunalda Range crossing. The Gunalda Range crossing, south of Tiaro, is a four-kilometre stretch of highway that is four lanes and divided, enabling traffic to pass slow vehicles and ensuring that the highway can remain open in the event of a breakdown. You can't tell me that traffic volumes were more then than they are today. Former transport ministers had the foresight to ensure that the Gunalda Range crossing was done properly. Transport ministers Mark Bailey and Michael McCormack, I believe, are genuine about road safety. I ask them: please bring forward a plan and fund a four-lane bypass around Tiaro.
COVID-19
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:54): Our front-line workers have kept us safe during COVID-19, yet somehow this government has not been able to support them. Just last week, we saw Minister Colbeck—the so-called aged-care minister—who couldn't answer basic questions about how many aged-care lives have been lost during this pandemic. This was before he walked out of the Senate and turned his back on his colleagues during a critical debate on this topic. On Sunday, nine people were added to the state's aged care death toll. This government simply has no grip on is happening with this crisis.
Last month, I was pleased to have a number of meetings with members of the QNMU and have since written to Minister Colbeck. I was accompanied by the state member for Mount Ommaney, Jess Pugh, and I met a local resident, Patricia. Patricia, like many of our local dedicated aged-care workers, was with Blue Care for over 30 years and was shocked to have only a few days notice to find out that her job had been cut, in what is one of the most critical times for this sector. Despite the fact that some residents are paying bonds of up to $500,000 for a bed and up to $750 a fortnight for care, and huge demands in aged care across Australia, there's been no communication or reason for these job cuts. Despite going to Fair Work, they've still not had their hours restored. I call on Blue Care in Queensland to lift their game.
A few weeks later I met with Jenny, Paula and Marina, wonderful, dedicated, hardworking aged-care workers and proud members of the QNMU. Again, they came to advocate how poorly aged-care industry workers are being treated, right now, during a global pandemic. Their members are being underpaid and overworked and are getting burnt out. Staff must do double shifts to keep up with demands and, as if this was not good enough, we're seeing a lack of basic PPE requirements for aged-care workers.
Over 57,000 constituents in my electorate have English as their second language or were born overseas. With an increasingly large number of multicultural seniors requiring aged care, members of the QNMU let me know the lack of workers who can understand and speak different languages, which has forced families to give up work to look after their loved ones. There is an enormous disconnect between what is being reported and what our front-line aged-care workers are experiencing. It's completely unacceptable, and this is before we get into the area of poor nutrition in our aged-care sector. Aged care is a federal responsibility, and the government need to lift their game before we lose more lives to the lack of resources in this sector. I call on the Morrison government to do better for our aged care.
COVID-19: Tourism
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (10:57): Firstly, I'd like to offer my sincere condolences to every family member and friend who has lost a loved one to COVID-19. In Western Australia we have all our borders closed, and I think most West Australians would agree that that is currently a sensible approach. Not a day goes by where I'm not hearing about people visiting all those wonderful tourism hotspots, in my electorate, in Broome, Exmouth and Coral Bay, and this is great news—that Western Australians are visiting their own backyard. I'm very happy with that. We know that accommodation service providers, in most of these locations, are doing okay but the tourism operators are experiencing challenging times.
In Kununurra, they're in dire straits. There are very few flights going in and out of the town, and with a challenging drive of 3,000 kilometres from Perth to Kununurra the tourism numbers are way down, as you can imagine. I fear that many of these operators will not survive for season 2021. Even in towns like Port Hedland, which is a thriving iron ore town, retail and hospitality are really struggling with their workforce. We know that the supply of backpackers has dried up in regional Western Australia, and Western Australians simply don't want to take up those jobs in regional WA.
According to REMPLAN's analysis of Treasury data, both Exmouth and Shark Bay shires had 50 per cent or more businesses apply for JobKeeper. These WA tourism drawcards are in the top 10 for the country's JobKeeper applications. I don't think this is a top 10 that any shire council wants to be in. They tell me Exmouth is packed to the rafters. So this significant amount of JobKeeper assistance is simply unfathomable. There's no doubt that JobKeeper has provided significant support to many businesses in Durack. I'm really proud of the federal government support that we're providing to those businesses throughout the whole of Durack, not just in the north-west.
But we have to ask ourselves, and be honest, how much pain is JobKeeper masking? This is something that concerns me really deeply. We all know that there are many businesses doing well, whether it's the floorcovering guy, the cafe, the hairdresser or the local tradies—I know that in Geraldton you can't get an electrician for love nor money. So this is good news, but for those who are doing it tough, especially those very weary tourism operators—especially in the north-west—who are planning for their future, I urge the Western Australian state government to set out clearly our state's plan for the opening of the borders. Tell my Durack business community what the health conditions that must be met are, including what the hotspot strategy is. They're on their knees and they need the WA government to tell them what the plan is.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members constituency statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Partner and Spouse Visa Applications
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) reaffirms that:
(a) Australians love who they love, and the community must have confidence that the partner and spouse visa provisions in the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) are administered lawfully, fairly, impartially and with integrity;
(b) while the Minister generally has the power to limit the number of visas in particular classes and subclasses by using the program management provisions in s86 of the Act, s87 of the Act explicitly prevents the 'capping' of visas to people who apply for a visa on the grounds that they are the spouse or de facto partner of an Australian citizen or permanent resident;
(c) the Parliament has voted twice to reject legislative amendments to give the Minister a power to cap these visa classes, preferring the processing of spouse visa applications to occur on a demand-driven basis; and
(d) inexplicable and unconscionable delays by the Department of Home Affairs in processing thousands of partner visa applications continues to result in significant harm to, and consequences for, Australian citizens and permanent residents;
(2) condemns the Government for:
(a) using the administrative tool of migration program planning levels to unlawfully override the legislated program management tools in s86 and s87 thus effectively 'capping' partner visas against the intent of s87 of the Act;
(b) refusing to release advice on the legality of their actions to restrict partner visa grants;
(c) presiding over an extraordinary blow out to 91,717 as at 31 March 2020 in the number of partner visa applications on hand, an increase of almost 30 per cent in under three years;
(d) unacceptably high and deteriorating processing times for partner visa applications, with the Department's website indicating that:
(i) subclass 300—75 per cent of applications are processed within 16 months and 90 per cent of applications are processed within 29 months;
(ii) subclass 309—75 per cent of applications are processed within 15 months and 90 per cent of applications are processed within 20 months;
(iii) subclass 100—75 per cent of applications are processed within 20 months and 90 per cent of applications are processed within 24 months;
(iv) subclass 820—75 per cent of applications are processed within 20 months and 90 per cent of applications are processed within 25 months; and
(v) subclass 801—75 per cent of applications are processed within 13 months and 90 per cent of applications are processed within 25 months;
(e) cutting the number of partner visas granted by 8,000 per annum which will mean the backlog and processing times continue to grow;
(f) allowing a blowout in the backlog of cases to 5,556 cases at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) as at 31 July 2020 with:
(i) an average processing time for partner cases of 726 calendar days; and
(ii) a partner visa set aside rate at the AAT of around 60 per cent;
(g) failing to address the perverse consequences of COVID-19 related border restrictions for partner visa applicants including:
(i) refusing to let numerous partner and prospective marriage visa holders enter Australia before their visa expires, or at least to extend their visa expiry date or refund their money; and
(ii) refusing to let people who are currently in Australia on a temporary visa and who are granted an offshore partner visa to activate that visa without having to fly overseas; and
(h) attempting to silence Australians who speak up publicly about the delays in processing and growing problems in the partner visa program; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) acknowledge the devastating human impact of delays and uncertainty on affected couples whose lives are in limbo, whose mental health is suffering, and whose relationships are being destroyed through separation from their partner for many years;
(b) apologise for the unacceptable delays in processing partner visa applications and take immediate action to process the backlog noting the Government has collected massive levels of visa application revenue that should be used to process applications in a timely way;
(c) urgently address the perverse consequences of COVID-19 related border restrictions on partner visas; and
(d) publicly commit to affected people and the wider community that partner visa processing will in future be administered lawfully, fairly, impartially and expeditiously.
Australians love who they love, and it has always been part of modern Australia that people fall in love, marry people from overseas and build a life here. Yet right now, as we debate this motion, the lives of nearly 100,000 Australians are in limbo, desperately waiting for years for this miserable government to grant their partner visas. Australian couples are suffering, separated for years and hearts pining. Relationships are now stressed or broken as waiting times continue to increase. Desperate cries for help about partner visa delays are now one of the most common things that come to my office, and every single member of this House would have hundreds, sometimes thousands of, constituents with similar trauma.
It used to take six months or maybe a year—that was normal. But after seven years of this mean, miserable Liberal government, waiting times are drifting past two years and just keep rising. Perhaps worse, though, than the time it takes is the complete uncertainty and fear. Australians now cannot plan their lives. Do they buy a house? Sell a house? Do they start a family? Will they ever get a visa? They click refresh on the website, watching these estimated wait times rise and rise, getting little to no information about their application from that black hole, that vortex, which is the Department of Home Affairs. Many people are terrified to speak up, thinking this may harm their chances. In truth, I found this helps people, as the government now is so desperate to stop the public criticism it was caught only two weeks ago fast tracking visas to people who went to the media in desperation. People who had waited years suddenly got their visa in 12 hours! It's an outrageous abuse of process and a corruption of public administration.
These delays are not due to a lack of resources. The visas are expensive—they're nearly $8,000—plus thousands more for health checks, security checks and agent fees. No, the growing delays are the result of deliberate—and I believe illegal—government policy. From the moment the government was elected and the now Prime Minister became immigration minister, a hard cap was placed on the number of partner visas issued every year. Two years ago he cut the number of visas every year, so now waiting times just rise even faster.
'Illegal' is a pretty strong word to throw at a minister, but it's true. Under the Migration Act, the minister has the power to cap and queue the number of visas issued each year for most visa classes. But spouse, partner and dependent child visas are different. Section 87 of the act explicitly states that the minister cannot cap those visas. They're supposed to be demand driven, acknowledging the reasonable right of Australians to fall in love and build a life with their partner here. The Hawke and Howard governments tried to pass legislation to give the minister the power to cap these visas, but both times this was rejected by the Senate.
The government know that what they're doing is not just cruel it is illegal. They have legal advice which they refuse to release, but we saw with documents released under freedom of information a Yes Minister-style attempt in 2016 to explain that a planning level is not a cap—it's just a cap! Yet only under this government has this hard annual limit been locked in, in a flat line. It's a cap. Some of the saddest situations are those people who have been granted a prospective marriage visa, having paid $10,000 to $20,000 and waited for years yet the government will not let their fiance come to Australia now. The clock is ticking for these couples as their visas expire.
The irony was the acting minister last week, speaking about keeping Australians together when he's keeping couples apart. And disgracefully the government will not refund their money or extend their visa. They're ripping off Australians in their own state-sponsored immigration racket. Are they seriously asking Australians to fork out another $10,000 to $20,000 and wait another two to three years in the hope that next time they might get lucky? We're a better, fairer country than this. Australians deserve to be treated better by this government.
The issue is not just going to go away, no matter how much the government members may wish it. The numbers will just keep rising. That's their policy, and there are angry Australians in every electorate in this country. They are now getting organised, thanks in large part to the wonderful Amelia Elliott from the Deakin electorate. She can't get a call back from her local MP—although she told me she watched 60 Minutes and figured out why. But, on behalf of all those Australians, I urge, I demand, government MPs to stop, to put down the partisan cudgels and talking points and ask themselves: How would you feel if this was you? How would you feel if this was your child? Is this right? Is it fair? Is it just to treat Australians in this way? And if the quiet voice inside says, 'No,' then do something—speak to the minister, do it quietly, do it loudly, do it in your party room. But let's work together to force change and fix this mess. Let these prospective marriage visa holders come to Australia for their wedding. Clear the backlog of partner visas, and let Australians who are in love be reunited with their partners. It's not too much to ask.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr GILES: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (11:06): I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Bruce. Like me, the member for Bruce—as he often refers to me as the other Julian; he, in this case, is the other Julian—is a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which I chair. The member for Bruce has raised these issues of partner visas with the Department of Home Affairs when they appeared before the committee in the context of our present inquiry into working holiday-maker visas. I know that this has been an issue of concern to him for some time.
I want to say that the COVID-19 situation has meant that the ability of people to come to Australia, even Australian citizens let alone people's non-Australian partners, has been significantly curtailed as a result of international and domestic border closures both in Australia and overseas. My office, like those of many other members, has received multiple inquiries about Australians seeking to travel to see family in other countries, to return to Australia from overseas and to bring partners and family members to Australia. While there is increased attention being paid to the issue of Australians overseas, it's worth noting that since 13 March the Australian government has helped over 27,000 Australian citizens and permanent residents return to Australia on more than 345 flights, including 64 flights directly facilitated by the government. The international passenger arrival caps are putting pressure on seats and the ability for people seeking to return to Australia quickly. These caps are being reviewed every fortnight, with the next review to take place on Friday 4 September.
Australians seeking to return should remain in regular contact with their airlines and travel agents to confirm their arrangements and subscribe to our travel advice at smartraveller.gov.au. I know from my contact with consular teams in other countries, particularly the high commission in India who I spent some time with in January this year, they are doing their best to help people out.
In the partner visa context, it is right to acknowledge for those waiting for partner visas that things have become much harder because of the COVID circumstances. While visa applications are continuing to be processed, people are experiencing many uncertainties with flights cancelled, weddings uncertain, very real health risks involved in travelling and no clarity about when the situation will change. All of this is added to the stress associated with visa applications in general.
Some applicants are also finding it difficult to get checks that they need to be processed in their own home countries. Services like biometric tests may not be currently available, and this means that their visa applications cannot be progressed and finalised. It's a reality, and it's difficult and frustrating for the people there to experience. Those in these difficult situations should be aware that if they do not yet hold a partner visa they are able to apply for a temporary visa and request travel exemption. Prospective marriage visa holders can also apply for an exemption to the current travel ban if they have compelling and compassionate reasons to travel to Australia.
Family migration is an important part of our migration program. The most common visas in the family migration category are partner visas. In 2018-19 there were 39,918 people coming to Australia on partner visas. This is actually a very significant figure when you consider that there were 119,188 marriages in the same year. That means for every three couples in Australia that were married, there was a partner visa granted to someone who came to Australia and built their life with the people they love. I think that this indicates we actually have a high number of people successfully obtaining partner visas each year.
I want to make clear that, contrary to what the member for Bruce has implied, the partner visa program isn't capped. While there is a cap on the overall number of migrants who come to Australia, there's no limit on the number of partner visas that can be granted. While section 85 of the Migration Act allows for the imposition of caps on visas of a specific class, that cannot be done for partner visas because of section 87.
Partner visa applications involve a two-stage processing arrangement to protect the integrity of the visa program. An applicant must be in a genuine and continuing relationship with their sponsor at both stages in order to be granted a permanent visa. This ensures that we are looking at people who are in serious, long-term committed relationships.
The public have every right to have confidence in the system and to have confidence that those who come here come here legitimately. The truth is that partner visas have been abused in the past. In 2012 The West Australian reported a marriage scam in Queensland, with a migration agent charging $18,000 to match people to Australians for bogus marriages. In the same year the Department of Home Affairs told a Senate inquiry that around nine per cent of prospective marriage visas are refused because the genuineness of that relationship could not be satisfied in that same year. In 2018 the Herald Sun reported that, over the four years prior, nearly 1,500 applications for partner visas were thrown out due to fraud.
So there have been concerns about the partner visa process and the genuineness. It's important that those concern are addressed and that people are properly assessed. While the partner visa process is burdensome for those who legitimately want to build a life together here in Australia, it's essential that it's rigorous because experience demonstrates that it can be and will be abused.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:11): I mentioned earlier my hope that the member for Berowra would second the motion. He disappointed me on that, but I thought his contribution was a very interesting one. Typically for him, it was a thoughtful and decent contribution, but, frankly, irrelevant to the case that he appeared to be making against the member for Bruce's motion. The member for Berowra did not engage with the key issues that the member for Bruce has put forward—the key issues I think all of us are experiencing in our electorate offices as we deal with people going through very difficult times and engaging with the legislative framework. Of course, the legislative framework has to deal with integrity in the system and has to recognise that there have been issues in the past, but that has got absolutely nothing to do with the issues, as is made abundantly clear by the statistics set out in the motion, particularly those going to the tribunal.
I'm very happy to stand with the member for Bruce and all of my Labor colleagues in recognising some facts. The key fact is that we are a proudly multicultural nation. Until recent times we have also been travelling people. People form loving relationships with people who aren't Australian citizens quite often, including my mother and father, for example. Our legal framework has recognised this for some time. In the other place attempts to change that legal framework—to impose a cap—have been rejected on two occasions. This government has no such proposal. As in so many other areas, it lacks the courage of its conviction, so it seeks to do by administrative fiat what it will not do with its lawmaking powers. That is profoundly unacceptable. If government members have a different view, they should put it before the House in the proper way, through introducing a bill.
There is nothing fair in the present arrangements. I hope members opposite can acknowledge that and deal with it directly, as I'm sure they are dealing with constituents who are in a state of great distress. The inexplicable and unconscionable delays on the part of the department in processing thousands of visas are resulting in deep personal harm and this is compounded by the wider circumstances all of us are dealing with right now. The statistics set out in the motion tell a dreadful story, but they don't hint at the personal tragedies that are the real stories here. They are the real inequities. The member for Bruce has been such a passionate advocate for migration broadly, particularly for couples and families who have been separated through this unconscionable system, if it can be called that. I believe he said earlier that this is an unconscionable racquet.
There are particular issues that we are confronting now that impact on partner visa applications and their processing. That's why on 1 May I wrote to the acting minister requesting that he recognise the human dimension of this system and put in place a no-disadvantage approach while travel and other restrictions are in place—that he get rid of some of the present restrictions on visas being granted and put in place a consistent approach.
The member for Bruce recognises that we have seen some ad hoc decisions which have seen justice granted in particular cases, but people shouldn't be reunited with the person they love because they can get a story up in the SMH or their story told in this place. We should see justice done in accordance with the law. That should not be too much to ask. I wrote to the minister on 1 May; five months on I am yet to receive a response, and I think that speaks volumes about the acting minister's commitment to his portfolio. He's very interested in talking tough on border protection but not in managing his vital immigration responsibilities. The Prime Minister loves to talk about bureaucratic congestion. If he wants to fix that, he should start with that minister and this department. This is a department that is running away from responsibility and has made a series of decisions to devalue its immigration functioning, which is a really significant issue here. We are losing capacity as well as losing will. And what has the government's response been to this? The grand plan wasn't to take responsibility. It was to outsource our visa processing to the highest bidder, to outsource our visa system to the highest bidder. What an extraordinary thing for a conservative government that likes to talk tough about borders to seek to do.
In the face of a problem, an issue of bureaucratic congestion, what does it do? It doesn't fix the problem, it doesn't recognise its human dimension, it seeks to sell it off to big business to allow the tickets to be clipped. What an extraordinary neglect. Here, government members, there is an opportunity: you can act in the interests of decency, in the interests of justice, in the interests of love and in the interests of upholding both the spirit and the letter of the law.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (11:16): I'm pleased to rise as the third Julian to speak on this particular motion. We ought to get the Parliamentary Library to track down if that's the first time that has ever happened in parliament's history!
It is a serious matter, so I will turn to the motion. There are a couple of reasons why I rise to speak on it today. Firstly, I want to lament the fact that Labor members, the mover and Labor members opposite who have spoken to the motion, are trying to score cheap partisan political points with an issue that is so difficult and so heartbreaking for many. To go as far as to declare that we don't support love is just an absolute nonsense, and shows how far the Labor members opposite will go to seek to gain some relevance at this time. Secondly, I just want to provide this Chamber with a few of the facts on this matter as it stands.
We are in the middle of a global pandemic, and I do want to recognise the heartbreak and distress that so many Australians have gone through, and continue to go through, as we all deal with the impact of it with our families and friends. The 41 deaths announced today by Victoria is yet another tragic reminder of what we are up against and the pain and sacrifice that all Australians are going through as we fight the pandemic. The government have acted swiftly and decisively from the start of this crisis, and we're doing what we can to assist all Australians, no matter the circumstances. We have acted in Australia's best interests and with those interests at heart. That is why it does sadden me to see the approach taken by Labor members today. The motion goes as far as to condemn the government and suggest we're not acting with integrity, and I want to, in very clear terms, dismiss this proposition. Australians have seen this government, led by the Prime Minister, act with the utmost integrity through the crisis. This shows, once again, how Labor are just desperately trying to seek relevance by scoring cheap political points.
Onto the important facts of the matter. The department manages the delivery of the partner visa program in line with the planning levels and priorities set by the government. It has been the longstanding practice of successive governments to manage the orderly delivery of migration program outcomes against planning levels. The partner visa program is not capped. It's an important point, and I will say it again: the partner visa program is not capped. Section 85 of the Migration Act allows for instruments to be made to impose caps on visas of a specified class. No instrument has been made that caps the partner visa program. Section 86 of the act provides that if a cap is imposed and if the number of visa grants reaches the number specified in the instrument, no more grants may be made. But then section 87 goes on to provide:
Section 86 does not prevent the grant of a visa to a person who applied for it on the ground that he or she is the spouse, de facto partner or dependent child of:
(a) an Australian citizen …
(b) the holder of a permanent visa … or
(c) a person who is usually resident in Australia …
The practicalities of what this means to the migration program is that Australia's rules for partner visas balance the need to provide pathways for legitimate migration with the need to ensure that we don't allow people seeking to do the wrong thing to abuse the very legitimate pathways. This is not about, as Labor are trying to oddly insinuate, us preventing love. That is ridiculous and patently false. The measures in place involve a two-stage processing arrangement that protects the integrity of the program. Applicants need to show a continuing relationship with their sponsor at both stages of the two-stage process. I don't think this is anything other than what Australians would expect to occur.
Specific measures have been put in place around international borders as part of COVID-19, and that is a legitimate part of the health response. Of course, it sees impacts for both noncitizens and nonresidents. The partner subclass visa holders are exempt from the travel restrictions and can travel to Australia. Immediate family members of an Australian citizen or permanent resident, including a spouse or de facto partner who does not hold a visa, are able to apply for a temporary visa and request a travel exemption. It is in this way that the government is working with all Australians on this very sensitive and delicate matter, to make sure that we put Australia's interests first and do so with compassion and understanding of the sacrifices they are making. We'll continue to take this approach.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (11:21): Eighteen per cent of Indi residents were born overseas. Many came here because they fell in love with an Aussie or fell in love with the country, and who could blame them? North-East Victoria, in my electorate of Indi, has a long history of offering a new home to migrants: the Chinese who mined for gold in the Ovens Valley; the thousands of refugees who passed through the gates of the Bonegilla reception centre after World War II; the Italians who transformed the King Valley into a food and wine mecca; and the recent arrivals from Nepal, Bhutan, Rwanda, Somalia, Kenya and the Democratic Republic of Congo, to name but a few. They breathe new life into our towns, such as UNICEF ambassador, Atosha Birongo, formerly the Wodonga youth ambassador of the year, and the Sikh community, who, after the bushfires, served free meals in Wodonga, Wangaratta, Tallangatta and Corryong. We are stronger and better because of what migrant families have brought to our rural and regional communities.
I share the member for Bruce's concerns about the growing backlog and delay in partner visas and the impact on new arrivals who want to make my electorate their home and want to make Australia their home. At the end of June last year, there were almost 80,000 partner visa applicants in the pipeline. Together with their Australian partner, this makes 160,000 people waiting for the paperwork so that they can start building their future. This was before COVID-19 and the expected blowout in processing times and travel bans. With 90 per cent of applications taking up to 25 months, they now have to be prepared for a two-year wait. Long processing delays take an emotional and financial toll, especially if one is overseas. Anyone who has done a long-distance relationship can tell you it's no easy task. Uncertainty is destabilising. If you don't know when your visa will be granted, you can't make plans, you can't start a family, you can't buy a house and you can't establish yourself in a job.
For people on temporary visas, COVID-19 restrictions have delayed English-language tests, NAATI tests and health examinations. A young doctor in my electorate is building her career as a regional GP, but her pathway to permanent residency is in limbo because of these delays. COVID related border closures are having a perverse impact on prospective marriage visa applicants. One Australian constituent of mine had a full wedding planned to marry his Chinese fiancee, but, after she travelled home to China at Christmas, she is now being prevented from re-entering to get married. She is stranded and the prospective marriage visa runs out at the end of October. The man has been contacting me for months. It's a very reasonable request that, at a minimum, there's an extension granted to this visa or they risk reapplying all over again.
Families desperate to begin their lives together should be reunited as quickly as possible. Migration has long been the key to Australia's economic success. The PM has predicted an 85 per cent drop in net migration this financial year. Migration will be crucial in the COVID recovery, and, when the borders open up, we should prioritise partner visas. We should welcome people who have chosen Australia as their new home, with a partner already in the community. They have a long-term plan and will invest in housing and their children's education. We should encourage them to move to regional Australia. Growing up in the country, as I can attest, is a great place to grow up. Let's get them here.
In closing, I want to recognise how the multicultural organisations of my electorate have stepped up for their border communities during the recent border closure. This closure has brought a sudden increase in police and military presence at checkpoints—a worrying sight for many migrants who faced such frightening circumstances in their previous country. These multicultural organisations have sprung into action, developing frequently asked questions sheets and video and audio resources in Nepali, Kinyarwanda and Swahili, and they coordinate bilingual assistance in applying for permits. I attended a meeting with these organisations and was impressed by their collaboration and fast action, and I want to recognise representatives from the Albury-Wodonga Ethnic Communities Council, Albury Wodonga Volunteer Resource Bureau, the Humanitarian Settlement Program at the Red Cross, and the Uniting Church, amongst others.
I call on the government to take immediate action to process the partner visa backlog and address the consequences of COVID-19 on these applications. If this means recruiting additional staff, so be it. Consider it part of JobKeeper. Maybe call it 'matchmaker', if you want to. Call it jobmaker, matchmaker or whatever. This is serious, and we need to act. It is incredibly heartbreaking and distressing, and we can do a lot, lot better.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:26): I start the discussion on this motion, noting the contribution from the member for Bruce and those who have made contributions, and say, frankly, how disappointing it has been that they seek to politicise something as important as making sure we reunite people who fall in love. Frankly, to suggest in this discussion that the government opposes love is just farcical and highlights that they are not actually serious about the serious issues at the heart of this motion and what our focus is, which is making sure we have an orderly migration system, that we protect and secure our borders and that we build an Australia for everybody to be able to realise their ambition and their dreams.
We know that at this time we are not in a normal period. Earlier this year, because of decisions and advice from health authorities, we closed international borders and introduced a travel exemption system, in extraordinary circumstances. Truthfully, I never thought I would see this situation. I remember when it was first discussed, and I was flabbergasted at the prospect. Ever since then we have had challenges as Australians have wanted to go overseas and, of course, Australians who have wanted to return home. I have to say that I had some real issues with the current arrangements, and I have made those comments public, because I believe that every Australian should have a right to return to their country and that limitations or barriers should not be unreasonable. But the practical reality is that, at this time, there are many Australians stranded in other parts of the world who want to get home and they can't.
The primary reason that this is occurring is that, because of the outbreak in Melbourne—which has our second-largest passenger airport—the state government has chosen to stop receiving international flights. Of course, Melbourne is not the only airport where we receive people back into. But when you have the second largest, with the second-largest traffic, it has a real and material impact on the number of Australians that can get home, with the obligation and burden of quarantining as well. We need to fix that. I have many constituents whose friends and families can't get home. While there are a lot of other issues in migration, including those that have been raised today, I'm sorry—I am very hardline on this—but Australians have a right to enter into their own country, and Melbourne and the Victorian state government are letting us down.
Worse, some airlines have used it as an opportunity to exploit people. I have spoken to the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister responsible about precisely this issue, where people are having their tickets cancelled and they're being asked to rebook on business class airfares and, in many cases, they are being asked to forego up to $50,000 for a family to return home. It is exploitive. It is gouging. It is despicable in this period. I don't doubt the challenges facing the airline industry, but if people buy a ticket, they should expect it to be honoured. I know that there are some Goldstein residents where there family is in one country and they have to go to a third country to get to a connecting flight, and they've gone to that third country to get the connecting flight back to Australia and found that their flight has been cancelled. It's shameful conduct.
Similarly, families in the United Kingdom and the United States—in just about every country—want the opportunity to come back to our nation. They must take precedence. Australians have a right to come back to their homes. Reasonable quarantine measures should be provided and supported. So, the sooner you can open Melbourne airport, Dan Andrews, Victorian Premier, the sooner we will be able to fully respect Australians and allow them to come to their homes. It is your mismanagement of the situation we presently have that means that Australians are locked out of their homes, and it is wrong.
Of course, on partner visas, we fully recognise that there are other people who wish to come to our country to be reunited with the people they love. That's why we have an uncapped program. It is to make sure that there are proper processes in place so that it isn't exploited or used for fraud. That's right and that's just.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Recycling
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) recognises the imperative of improving waste management, reducing unnecessary packaging and boosting recycling in Australia;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) Australians generate about 67 million tonnes of waste each year, of which 37 million tonnes is recycled;
(b) only 12 per cent of the 103 kilograms of plastic waste generated per person in Australia each year is recycled, mostly overseas;
(c) for every 10,000 tonnes of waste recycled, more than 9 jobs are created; and
(d) waste related activities add $6.9 billion to the economy annually;
(3) welcomes the Government's recent $20 million commitment for innovative projects under round 8 of the Cooperative Research Centres Projects grants to grow our domestic plastics recycling industry; and
(4) notes that this is part of the Government's Australian Recycling Investment Plan, a package of initiatives totalling $167 million designed to grow and strengthen Australia's domestic recycling industry, and to support industry and community initiatives to lift recycling rates in Australia.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:32): I seek leave to make a further contribution on this debate, as when it was first discussed, many months ago, I made a partial contribution.
Leave granted.
Mr TIM WILSON: Thank you, Deputy Speaker Bird, and opposition members for the indulgence. I think it highlights how strongly, I hope, we all feel about the importance of recycling as part of the health of our community. One of the core reasons that I'm a Liberal is that I believe strongly in the ideals of stewardship and that we inherit from one generation a healthy economy, a cohesive society and, of course, an environment that we all cherish. Our responsibility is to carry it from one generation to the next and to hand to the next generation not just what we have but hopefully what is better—an even more prosperous economy, an even more cohesive society and, of course, an environment that we cherish into the future. Of course, making sure we take the role of stewardship seriously is heavily dependent on what we do with our natural resources. I know this is a point of contention for many members in this chamber, depending on the topic we're discussing, but where we can seek to repurpose waste to a constructive use is core to the efficient use of the world's resources and is an utterly consistent consequence of having a free-market economic system.
Societies that promote waste, intentionally or otherwise, are those that don't use price signals. They're ones that don't look at how to be efficient, competitive and productive. That is something that we as a nation can excel at. That's why I welcome so many of the measures that have been made by the Prime Minister but also by our outstanding Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, the member for Brisbane, who are doing a wonderful job of focusing on how to make sure we take our waste and use it constructively to build the growth in opportunity in Australia. Waste should never go to any other purpose than repurpose. Yes, there's a point about waste being our responsibility and that we have to take responsibility for ourselves—that's true—but we should want to repurpose scarce resources to an economically productive purpose. It helps us, as a society and a community: it should lower costs and of course it should build a greater sense of confidence within the Australian people, that we can solve many of the environmental challenges we face.
Consistent with that, the government has introduced the Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020, which will phase in the end of the 645,000 tonnes of unprocessed plastic, paper, glass and tyres that Australia ships overseas each year. As a consequence, we're going to take responsibility for that waste in our country. It complements quite an expansive program of practical environmental measures by this government, where we implement programs that can materially improve the circumstances of waste issues in this country. We have a billion-dollar transformation of Australia's waste and recycling capacity by helping to build onshore demand for recycling content. This will create more than 10,000 jobs and divert over 10 million tonnes of resources from landfill.
It's not just the process of managing our waste and making sure it could be used for a different purpose, it's actually an economic opportunity to build jobs for the 21st century. Of course, in doing so, the Assistant Minister for the Environment, the member for Brisbane, has been leading discussions around how we promote regulation of product stewardship which will incentivise companies to take greater environmental responsibility for the end of life of the products they manufacture.
That's what this discussion is about: yes, recycling is about waste and making sure we minimise it. But the real focus is making sure that we put our efforts into responsibility for future generations.
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (11:36): I welcome this motion. It's a wake-up call to the member's own government. The reality is that over the last 30 years, when in office the Liberal Party has been better at recycling its leaders than it has been about providing leadership in recycling waste. Today, as the motion notes, we have 67 million tonnes of waste a year, of which some 30 million tonnes is not recycled at all; it goes straight to landfill, never to be seen again and never to be used again. When it comes to plastic, we use 102 kilograms of plastic for every person in this country—each of us generates 102 kilograms of plastic in our consumption—and only 12 per cent of that is recycled. I think many people are shocked about that—I was definitely shocked, when reading this motion, to discover that only 12 per cent of the plastic that I use is recycled every year. That means my entire body weight in plastic is going into landfill each year. This has to stop; we have to do something about it.
It's not like some of the great challenges we have with the coronavirus or transitioning to a clean energy economy. We have all the technology to have a proper recycling industry in Australia right here and right now. And the next generation wants us to recycle more. Recently at his day care, my son did recycling for the week. They made little bins, they painted the recycling logo and he had a lovely time. And it was great learning; the downside is now that every time he spots the recycling logo he wants to rush to put things in the recycling bin. He will grab a full carton of milk and try to put in the recycling! I think that's a pretty good analogy for what the next generation wants us to do when it comes to recycling. They want us to get onto it and they want us to take it seriously.
My electorate takes it seriously—the electorate of Perth takes recycling seriously. I did a count: there are 23 buy-nothing sell-nothing Facebook groups in Perth, just in my electorate. These are people who are trying to find really practical community-led ways to recycle. That's a sign that people recognise their consumption is a huge driver in what we can do ourselves when acting on recycling. I will also give a shout out to two Instagram leaders in my community who do a lot in making sure that we share ways of reducing our own environmental impacts: @LessWasteKate and @treadingmyownpath. They are both great community activists who make sure they share their journey of reducing their waste.
Then you have entire social enterprises built on recycling, like Dismantle, which is all about recycling bikes and giving young people an opportunity. There's Perth College kindergarten, who wrote to me. I wrote to the Prime Minister about their desire to see local businesses use less plastic. The kids designed their own poster, with beautiful little turtles on it, and went around to all the shops near their kindergarten to put the posters up, to try to make sure that they could share their message about reducing plastics.
Then you've got the City of Vincent and the town of Bassendean, who will go from FOMO to FOGO. They have 'Food Organics, Garden Organics' bins, which will be rolling out this year and next, to make sure that we do more to separate our rubbish before it goes to landfill. The City of Bayswater have led in their desire to rehabilitate an old tip. The Riverside Gardens was the old Bayswater tip and is now a big grass patch. It's lovely. A lot of people walk their dogs there. They want to make sure that over time we can reforest that land. Their goal, to build the biggest urban forest in the Perth metropolitan area, is something I'm 100 per cent behind. Then there's the City of Stirling's resource recovery centre. You can take, basically, anything that doesn't stink there and it can be recycled. It is massive. Cardboard, fridges, televisions—anything and everything can go there. It's a great credit to the City of Stirling, what they have built. It's also a lot of fun to take your kids there. It is almost as much fun as the zoo, it's free and it's good for the environment, and it's a home to many bin chickens in the Perth electorate—it's just over the boundary but the bin chickens don't respect electoral boundaries, as many of us would know!
Finally, I'll just put a call out. The City of Perth has a mayoral election in a couple of months. The City of Perth's mayoral candidates need to get dirty. They need to get serious about waste. They need to get serious about a Perth CBD recycling plan. We will see, on 1 October this year, Western Australia finally have a container deposit scheme. I commend the McGowan government for that initiative.
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (11:42): I would like to thank the member for Higgins for moving the motion. Each person in Australia generates 103 kilograms of plastic waste each year and, of that amount, only 12 per cent is recycled. To make that statistic more daunting, that waste is mostly recycled overseas. For too long we have buried this problem in landfill and shipped it offshore. Not anymore. The Morrison government is banning the export of plastic, paper, glass and tyres and investing close to $360 million in local waste and recycling projects.
The Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill 2020 will phase in the end of 645,000 tonnes of waste that Australia ships overseas each year. It complements the Morrison government's billion-dollar transformation of Australia's waste and recycling capacity by helping build onshore demand for recycled content. This will create more than 10,000 jobs and divert over 10 million tonnes of resources from landfill. Those living in my electorate of Reid are passionate about protecting and restoring our environment and practising better waste management. Both the Cooks River and the Parramatta River run through Reid, and they should be pristine homes for the native wildlife in our area and beautiful places of recreation for local residents. Instead, we have seen the impact that plastic waste is having on these waterways. One hundred and forty-four thousand tonnes of litter settles in the Parramatta River yearly.
Earlier this year, environment minister Sussan Ley joined me in Reid for Clean Up Australia Day. At this event I had a chance to speak with local community organisations, like Our Living River, an initiative run by the Parramatta River Catchment Group to help make Parramatta swimmable again by 2025. Only a few weeks ago, I met with the youngest Riverkeeper Ambassador, Hannah Chalmers, who is a PLC Sydney primary school student and descendant of Sir Edmund Barton. Hannah has won awards for her environmental app, the Green Elephant. I have spoken at length, in this place, about the work that groups and individuals, especially our young people, are doing in Reid to protect our environment and I will continue to support their grassroots work.
While it is important that this work occurs on a local level, the government is also taking important steps to put waste management on the national agenda. We are growing our recycling industry so that waste management is more sustainable in the future. Australians generate about 67 million tonnes of waste a year, of which 37 million tonnes is recycled. We know that for every 10,000 tonnes of waste recycled more than nine jobs are created, so the Morrison government sees that 37 million tonnes of waste as an opportunity—an opportunity to tackle a serious environmental issue as well as an opportunity to create jobs. I'm proud to be part of a government that is innovating Australia's waste recycling industry through an investment of $20 million into a series of initiatives that will grow our domestics plastics recycling industry. It is essential for our recovery from coronavirus that the economy continues to grow domestically while also looking at ways to ensure environmental sustainability.
Waste related activities add $6.9 billion to the economy annually. We have the potential to take this growth further. This is why the government's Australian Recycling Investment Plan is critical in strengthening Australia's domestic recycling industry. It is rolling out a package of initiatives totalling $167 million, and only this week the Morrison government introduced landmark legislation that sees Australia establish a national industry framework for recycling. The people of Reid should feel confident that sustainable waste management is firmly on the national agenda. I encourage everyone in Reid to recycle and to learn what items they can and cannot place in their bins, because when you recycle your waste you are now creating opportunities for Australians. You are boosting our economy and creating jobs. The Morrison government has made sure of that. We will keep working to reduce unnecessary packaging and boost recycling in Australia.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (10:46): I thank the member for Higgins for this motion. When China announced a ban on the import of recyclable plastic two years ago, it sparked a rethink of the way we do things that can lead to more investment in the regions and more jobs in the regions. Recycling is, in fact, a recycled idea. I come from a family of recyclers. My father, Jack Carew, was famous for bringing more things home from the tip than he ever took there. My brothers and I all had our bicycles built from recycled bits and pieces that dad found. My mother-in-law, Dorothy Haines, was quite famous for cutting up the fingers on rubber gloves and turning them into rubber bands.
But today I really want to talk about the opportunities we have for jobs. That's the story I think we need to be telling. Being smarter about how we use resources is not just an environmental but a jobs opportunity and a regional jobs opportunity. What would it look like if we got serious about growing jobs in recycling in regional Australia? I'd like to give you three examples. The World Wildlife Fund has published a $500 million proposal to establish a new domestic battery industry. Their plan would see Australia build seven new battery manufacturing plants, one lithium refinery plant and a suite of new infrastructure to recycle 6,000 tonnes of battery waste every year. This framework is an integrated mining-manufacturing-recycling chain, with jobs at every step of the process. The recycling part alone would create 7,000 jobs, mainly in regional Australia.
I've been talking a lot lately about the potential of renewables in regional Australia, and one question I get a lot is: 'What about the waste? What happens when a solar panel or battery reaches the end of its life?' These are reasonable questions. The answer is a positive one. This is another part of the recyclable, renewable opportunity for us. CSIRO estimates that today's lack of battery recycling in Australia represents a lost economic opportunity of from $813 million right through to possibly up to $3 billion.
Recycling organic waste is a second major opportunity for the regions. Consulting firm AlphaBeta last month released analysis conducted for the Climate Council that showed that expanding the collection and processing of organic waste could create 10,000 jobs over three years. This would be a new fleet of 10,000 organic waste collectors, treatment facility operators and construction workers. Most states have few or no organic waste recycling programs. In Queensland just one per cent of local councils have an organic waste recycling program. The opportunities at the local level are simply massive.
We don't need to just compost our organic waste. We can make energy from it. In Indi we host Australia's largest renewable biodiesel producer at Barnawartha. Just Biodiesel produces 50 million litres of biodiesel each year. It's made mainly from tallow and recycled vegetable oil. Our region generates 1.5 million tonnes of organic waste, mostly agricultural waste, like straw and forestry residues. Together these resources could supply 18 million gigajoules of energy a year. There is huge potential for a new regional export industry from this.
Right now our economic challenges dictate that we should be making targeted investments in strategic industries that create jobs quickly, building our sovereign capabilities so we aren't beholden to what other countries do, and laying the foundation for industries that will drive our prosperity for generations. Taking seriously our potential to use our resources smarter—our plastics, solar panels, batteries and organic waste—and transform them into new products would mean thousands of new jobs for regional Australia. I am really interested in that. I hope that the government is too and that it is smart enough to capture that opportunity for the regions for all of us so that we can not only recycle but create jobs.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ) (11:51): I inform the Federation Chamber that, pursuant to standing order 110, the honourable member for Kennedy has withdrawn notice No. 2 standing in his name. The order of precedence of remaining private members' business notices, as determined by the Selection Committee's report adopted by the House on 26 August 2020, remains unchanged.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Defence Industry
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes the important role Australian small business has in the future of our national and economic security through its integral role in our defence industry;
(2) recognises the defence industry's potential for growth in electoral divisions like Herbert and other regional electoral divisions across Australia;
(3) supports opportunities to maximise the participation of Australian companies in all facets of defence procurement; and
(4) acknowledges the Government's commitment to deliver a robust, resilient and internationally competitive Australian defence industry.
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (11:52): No Australian government in modern history has invested more or done more to modernise our military than this coalition government. By way of comparison, the previous Labor government sat idle for six years in what could be referred to as a valley of death for the Australian defence industry. Not only did they famously fail to commission a single Australian built ship but they gutted $18 billion from the defence budget, bringing it to its lowest level since World War II. When I say that they gutted $18 billion, I mean that it was an actual cut, unlike what those opposite refer to in aged care as a cut. By comparison, aged-care funding has gone up by more than $1 billion each year under this government.
Having served both full time and part time as a Reservist in Australia's military, as many in this place have as well, it was very disappointing to see these cuts which impact on our ability to protect Australia's national interests. The protection of our national interests does require a strong and capable Australian Defence Force. Our ADF was a casualty of Labor's inability to effectively manage the budget. That lack of investment in defence industry really did cost jobs. Under Labor, 119 defence projects were delayed, 43 were reduced and eight were cancelled. This really did risk creating critical capability gaps.
By way of contrast, the Morrison government is getting on with the job of delivering for Defence and for our defence industry. In my home state of Western Australia, the Morrison government has restored hope to the defence industry. Ten of the 12 Arafura class patrol vessels, 21 Guardian class patrol boats, two minehunter support vessels, one hydrographic vessel and six patrol boats will be built at Henderson in Western Australia. Acknowledging that I have already reminded those present about Labor's inability to commission a single ship, it's my pleasure to point out that all of these numbers are in addition to that sum total of zero new ships commissioned by those opposite.
Let me focus now on the all-important aspect of Australian jobs. This is particularly topical at the moment as we move towards economic recovery through our response to and now recovery from coronavirus. The Morrison government is building a stronger defence industry through an unprecedented investment of $270 billion in Australia's defence capabilities. There are 15,000 businesses and 70,000 Australians employed in our defence industry that are directly benefiting from our $270 billion plan. We are creating at least 15,000 jobs in Australian defence shipbuilding with our plan to build more ships and create more jobs and more opportunities for small businesses right around the country. The 12 new offshore patrol vessel will be delivered by Australian workers in Australian shipyards using Australian steel. Now only will this project create employment for up to 1,000 Australia workers but the vessels will play an important role in protecting our borders and keeping Australians safe.
The Australian defence industry is also growing by taking up opportunities to participate in global supply chains, including that relating to the Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF. Under the JSF program, 50 Australian companies employing 2,400 people around Australia are involved, sharing $1.7 billion in production contracts. The Morrison government will meet our targets and go further in the JSF program, as the numbers are expected to increase to $2 billion and 5,000 jobs nationally by 2023.
On 26 August we announced a $1 billion defence recovery investment to keep defence industry strong on the road ahead. We're doing this to back local tradies and suppliers to do work on our defence bases. We're also increasing funding for defence industry grants, including the Skilling Australia's Defence Industry grant, and more than quadrupling the funding of this program from $4 million to $17 million a year. The Morrison government is getting on with the job of delivering for defence industry. (Time expired)
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (11:7): I rise in support of this motion by the member for Herbert. South Australia is not immune to the rising tide of unemployment in the wake of the economic downturn caused by this pandemic. While unemployment in our state climbed to 8.8 per cent in June, the defence industry in South Australia is bucking this trend and providing a consistent stream of skilled work for our state, including in my electorate of Mayo.
Just around the corner from my electorate office in Mount Barker, you will find Zenith Custom Creations, owned and operated by Craig and Linda. Housed in an unassuming warehouse in a light industrial area, Zenith could be mistaken for any ordinary factory if it weren't for the occasional convoy of camouflage-clad equipment coming and going from their rapidly expanding business. I visited Zenith in October 2019, and their factory has doubled in size since my first visit back in 2017. Zenith has been operating since 2001, and in conjunction with Daronmont Technologies they manufacture the latest-generation, lightweight, air-transportable shelters for military applications. I had the opportunity to inspect one of the shelters during my most recent visit and gain an understanding of the many uses that these pods could be adapted to meet—from office spaces to scientific laboratories and, sadly, even for morgues. Whatever the specifications, Craig and Linda and their team meet the brief.
The team at Zenith use cutting-edge technology, including wi-fi enabled aluminium welders, to deliver high-quality products for their customers. But what Craig and Linda stressed to me during our visit was that, while investing in the latest equipment was a necessary business expense, what was crucial to their success was their staff. They value their staff and they want their staff to grow with the company. They also recognise the benefits of a diverse life experience. For example, during my visit I spoke with an employee who spent years working as a baker but who is now learning specialist welding skills with the guidance and support of Zenith. Between 2017 and 2019 Zenith have doubled their staff and were offering a stable, attractive source of employment for our local community.
They continue to go from strength to strength. Just last month Kongsberg Defence Australia and Raytheon Australia announced the commencement of an in-country manufacturing activity for the fire distribution shelter system as part of its national advanced surface-to-air missile system capability for the Australian Army. In making the announcement, Kongsberg's general manager, Mr John Fry, said he was 'proud to partner with Australian businesses such as Zenith Custom Creations' and went on to note:
Zenith … have an excellent track record and have demonstrated their ability to manufacture to demanding specifications, which will be suitable for not only the Australian Defence Force, but for Kongsberg's global supply chain
Zenith Custom Creations is an example of what can happen when we support our regional businesses, who in turn support our regional workers, who can then support our regional economies. I can't tell you—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12 : 01 to 12 : 19
Ms SHARKIE: As I was saying. Zenith Custom Creations is an example of what can happen when we support our regional businesses, who, in turn, support our regional workers, who can then support our regional economies and communities. What this means in my electorate is that instead of somebody leaving for work at seven o'clock in the morning, heading down to the city and coming back at seven o'clock at night, they are home and present in their communities. They can be part of footy practice and they can be part of netball. They can be part of all the good things that we need them to do and to volunteer for.
With concerning losses and redundancies across the hospitality, tourism and accommodation sectors—sectors that are typically dominated by women—it may be that defence industries are able to provide new career opportunities for those workers who are keen to remain in our regions. I know that the Working Women's Centre in Adelaide is hoping to partner with defence contractors to look at ways that the sector can encourage women who have lost employment during the pandemic to take up apprenticeships and learn new skills in this industry. I support this initiative and I encourage both the state and federal governments to consider providing financial support to these programs to improve the chances of keeping in the workplace not only women but also, particularly, those in the regions, where the opportunities are fewer. I'm very proud of all of our businesses across Mayo, and it has been a pleasure today to talk about the great work of Zenith.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (12:20): The coalition government certainly is supporting defence industry capability in Australia by contracting local work to build boats to defend our nation. We are all aware of the development of 12 attack class submarines and the Hunter class frigates in Osborne in South Australia. The Arafura class offshore patrol vessels are not only great boats but also a great way of us engaging with our Pacific partners. They are going to be built at Henderson in WA. The guardian class patrol boats, two minehunter support vessels, a hydrographic survey vessel and more patrol boats are also being built at the Henderson shipyard in Western Australia—with all Australian workers, Australian steel and Australian skills being developed as a result. There are at least 15,000 jobs, which means dollars circulating in the Australian economy.
I recall in this very house, in my first term, leading a series of engagements with my colleagues about why we don't get local procurement happening. I heard every excuse under the sun as to why we couldn't do it—for example, we'd be breaking WTO rules or free trade agreements. But somewhere along the line the penny dropped, and suddenly the contracting stuff in Australia was really good for the Australian economy—lightbulb moment, Australia. It is great to contract and do things in Australia because the economic multiplier stays here—and we are certainly doing that in Defence.
Before I finish, I would just like to highlight that there are Australian boat builders who are manufacturing technology for our most significant ally, and that is the United States of America. The humble Birdon marine, which is based in Port Macquarie, in a strategic location near the highway and on the Hastings River, have secured over $700 million worth of contracts to build bridge erection boats for the US Army. They have received their second contract. They have also received contracts to extend the life of existing coastguard vessels for the US Coastguard. They are also building ferries for the New South Wales government. They are doing all sorts of work around the world, manufacturing facilities in partnerships around the world.
So, when we are looking to expand our industries, we shouldn't always look to the primes, which are generally overseas. If we are really going to grow our manufacturing capability we should, like US defense does, put aside a slice of the funds for contracting to the smaller providers so that they're not always tied in by getting a piece of the action out of the primes. That's not to say that the primes aren't doing a good job, but I think we should really be looking to how we grow our manufacturing capability in the defence space in a more bottom-up rather than a top-down fashion. We have great capability in Australia.
I commend our government's policy of building up our defence capability by focusing on local production. It's such a great idea. But, remember, there are lots of gems hiding here onshore in Australia. The rest of the world recognises them, and I'm sure they're on the radar of people over in the Russell Offices. So don't always assume that you need a big prime contractor to get great work done in Australia.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (12:24): We are now deep in a national recession, but the Morrison government still don't have a plan for getting Australia out of it. The Morrison government expect another 400,000 Australians to lose their jobs between now and Christmas, but they won't tell us what they're going to do about it. They've got a political plan for whom they're going to blame, and we've seen that throughout the television networks this morning, but they don't yet have a proper plan for jobs for the Australian people.
Defence industry could play an important role in a national jobs plan for Australia's post-COVID-19 recovery if the government showed some vision. In my portfolio, the domestic capability of Australia's cybersecurity industry is now a crucial part of Australia's ability to defend itself, and it could be a major source of jobs in Australia's economic recovery. Both the 2020 Defence Strategic Update and the 2020 Force Structure Plan recognised the importance of cyber capabilities for Australia's Defence Force. The defence mobilisation review found in that, in the cyberfronts of modern unconventional warfare, 'many of the targets will be civilian businesses and individuals' and that, similarly, 'the resources needed to respond will be mostly privately held'. Responding in this context will be 'a whole of nation endeavour'. But, while our cyber defence planners have a growing appreciation of the role of cyber in Australia's war-fighting capacity, the Australian government's understanding of Australia's cybersecurity sector as a crucial sovereign capability in Australia's defence industry is stuck in the last century.
Cybersecurity capabilities are slightly different from other defence capabilities. Offensive and defensive cybersecurity capabilities are two sides of the same coin. You can't understand one without understanding the other. At the same time, the terrain of these offensive and defensive cybersecurity capabilities traverses defence and civilian networks, public and privately owned infrastructure and OT networks, decades-old legacy systems and rapidly innovating new systems. Cybersecurity capabilities can't exist in isolation. They can't be built in a lab cut off from the world. They need to be embedded in a diverse, interconnected and rapidly evolving sector to be effective. They need a thriving ecosystem in which to develop—not just well resourced security agencies and defence forces but also a network of cybersecurity firms, big and small, local and international, as well as independent researchers, academics and savvy journalists.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 12:27 to 12:37
Mr WATTS: The Australian private sector cybersecurity companies in particular have a significant role to play in helping to defend Australia from cyberattacks and in building the necessary resilience to protect Australians from the near constant cyberattacks that we experience today. We already have a number of world-class cybersecurity companies providing key capabilities, like Sapien's OT security monitoring, Red Piranha's threat management platform, UpGuard's supply chain risk management framework and Senetas's post-quantum cryptography. The local cybersecurity industry isn't just a part of our national cyberdefence; they are also a source of high-wage jobs in a sector that's only going to grow in coming years. Business analysis firm Canalys forecast that cybersecurity spending will increase by between 2.5 per cent and 5.6 per cent globally this year despite the wider budget pressures on companies during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
AustCyber has forecast that Australia will require an extra 17,000 additional cybersecurity workers by 2026 to meet this security challenge, but, despite the pressing need for local capability and the job creation opportunity that it represents, we're missing the opportunity. The Morrison government's recently released Australia's Cyber Security Strategy 2020 set no objectives for domestic cybersecurity industry development and supported no policies to grow the local industry. Similarly, there was little urgency to scale up investment and technological innovation in the recent Defence Strategic Update. We're investing more and more in the cybercapabilities of our security and defence agencies—well and good—but we're not matching this in the local ecosystem needed to support, grow and develop our national cybercapabilities.
Given the security and economic imperative, it's time for government to consider an Australian strategic technology industry policy. A strategic industry policy for the information age would align research and development, government procurement rules on local and SME participation, defence spending, higher education and industry policies to the development of strategically important sovereign capabilities and growth opportunities in a cybersecurity sector, a framework for the Australian government to back Australian companies to meet Australian security needs and create jobs for other Australians in the process. In the midst of a global pandemic and a national recession, this is just what the doctor ordered. Australia's changing strategic circumstances could be an opportunity as well as a challenge for Australia. If the government has the vision and foresight to lead this change, we can develop world-leading cybersecurity capabilities right here in Australia. We should grasp these opportunities and address the challenges that we're facing on the global stage.
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (12:40): The defence of our nation is a solemn duty of our government, and with an unprecedented $270 billion investment the Morrison government is rising to meet the challenge of our times as we work towards two per cent of GDP for defence spending.
That investment will create new opportunities for small businesses and create thousands of new jobs. By contrast, Labor raided the defence budget to pay for their economic mismanagement; they cut $18 billion. In Moncrieff, business leaders have been coming together to rebuild the existing industries and to create the future of new and emerging industries. I'll be spreading the word to Gold Coast small businesses to scan our defence industry for opportunities. The families of Moncrieff will also benefit from jobs which are created by defence industry. One that comes to mind in Moncrieff is Combat Clothing Australia in Southport, owned by Stuart Bruce. It manufactures clothing for defence. And there are definitely a lot of other opportunities that one may not think about which could apply to the central Gold Coast seat of Moncrieff. Imagine also the inspiration for Gold Coast students enthusiastically studying STEM subjects, knowing the potential of a career in the defence industry.
We ask so much of all those who serve in the Australian Defence Force. The member for Herbert exemplifies that service. He served with the Australian Army in East Timor and in Afghanistan, where he was severely wounded by an improvised explosive device. The arduous recovery process did not quell his desire to serve others. The member for Herbert has worked tirelessly to promote mental wellbeing and suicide prevention. In 2018, he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia, an OAM, for his service to war veterans. Mr Thompson, I thank you for your service. I thank your wife, Jenna, and your two daughters, Astin and Emery, for continuing to share you as you serve the people of Herbert and Australia more broadly.
The more we understand the sacrifices made by ADF families, the better we can understand the importance of the many different ways we can better support them. Our words of support matter to our women and men in uniform, but even more vital is that we support them with the capability to do their job well. Australia needs that capability for all of us to be safe. Building that capability creates defence industry jobs—it's a double win. The 211 new combat reconnaissance vehicles to be delivered through LAND 400 Phase 2 demonstrate well how the defence industry can deliver jobs, capability and improved safety for ADF members. This program will create 1,450 jobs across Australia. The Morrison government's significant shipbuilding for the defence of Australia includes 12 submarines and 51 surface ships, creating at least 15,000 jobs for my former state of South Australia. This contrasts with Labor, that didn't commission a single Australian-built ship.
Building on Australia's defence capability is building our nation's defence industry, including small business. The jobs that flow from building up Australia's defence capability are not just from assembling ships, vehicles and other equipment but also from inputs such as Australian steel for the Arafura class offshore patrol vessels and, as I said before, uniforms for soldiers. One of the important roles for the offshore patrol vessels is securing our borders from the illegal arrivals that would recommence if Labor's past weak border policies were implemented again. That weakness—that inability to commit to outcomes over virtue signalling—was disastrously enabling for the people smugglers. This resulted in over 50,000 illegal arrivals. There is nothing compassionate or virtuous about over 1,200 people dying at sea. Our defence capability has proved its value in securing our borders, supporting bushfire response and, can I say, in the current crisis. This is the much broader context of this capability, beyond the obvious military roles.
The Morrison government is determined that its $270 billion defence investment involves Australian businesses in all aspects of these important projects, including design, construction, project management and sustainment activities. The government has mandated that tenders must demonstrate how the maximisation of Australian defence industry capability will be achieved. We should all share that determination to create opportunities for Australian business. The opportunities are not just national; they are global. Fifty Australian companies are sharing $1.7 billion in contracts for the Joint Strike Fighter program, employing 2,400 people. The Morrison government will deliver the right capability for the women and men of the ADF, job creation through Australian business and the upskilling of the defence industry. The Morrison government is backing the Australian defence industry, especially the role of small and medium business in its success.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (12:45): I start by commending the mover of the motion and also the contribution that was just made by my good friend the member for Moncrieff. The defence industry has been transformational, particularly for small businesses, since the coalition were elected in 2013. I think it's important to start by reflecting on how we've gotten to where we are right now, because the point the member made is quite right: under Labor, for six years, not a single capital ship was commissioned for the Royal Australian Navy. By contrast, since we've been in government, since 2013, we've made important decisions on the Attack class submarine, the Hunter class frigate and the offshore patrol vessels as well as the Pacific patrol vessels that we're producing for our friends throughout the South Pacific.
Those decisions have been transformational for so many small businesses across the country, particularly in my electorate of Sturt. I have a business called Supashock in the north of my electorate. They've always been in my electorate, but they've moved to new premises in the north of my electorate because they're expanding. They're participating in the Land 400 and Land 121 programs through the supply chain for the Rheinmetall vehicles that are now being constructed in Queensland. They're pursuing many other opportunities in defence, in those programs and other programs, at the moment. That's just one example of the many businesses in my electorate that are benefiting from these decisions.
In South Australia, of course, the naval shipbuilding decisions are the most significant. Later this year, we should see steel being cut on the first prototypes for the Hunter class frigate at Osborne South. The shipyard there is progressively being handed over to British Aerospace, who, of course, were selected to build the nine frigates. With the cutting of steel later this year, we'll then move into production of the first of the class next year, in 2021. That, of course, is on track. It was very exciting to have visited there recently, a few weeks ago, to see what's happening on site. British Aerospace are the selected company, but there are small businesses associated with building the shipyards—the small businesses that will be a part of the supply chain. All the various supports that BAE need on that project are mouth-watering for South Australian businesses. We're already seeing some contracts bear fruit for those businesses. They're hiring new people because they need to expand because of the opportunities that they're getting from that decision.
The submarine contract for the Attack class submarines is even more significant than the one for the Hunter class frigates. We're building 12 of the submarines in South Australia. The shipyard north of the frigate yards, also at Osborne, are pouring cement as we speak. We're going to start seeing those buildings coming up on the horizon of Adelaide. It's a great proof point for the opportunities that young South Australians are going to have in the future in the defence industry because of the decisions this government has made to ensure that we've got a sovereign defence industry capability in Australia.
That's shipbuilding, but decision have been made in all areas of defence industry. When it comes to land programs, I mentioned the Land 400 and Land 121 projects that are being commissioned in this country to produce and create a sovereign defence industry capability for generations of Australians into the future. This is important for our national security. It's also important for our industrial capability and the future of our economy. Defence is always going to involve decisions of extreme magnitude. Many, many billions of dollars around these programs are being spent. We want to spend that money in this country. We want to spend that money in a way that creates opportunities for Australian businesses and also in a way that creates jobs for young Australians.
That's one of the really important things for us to do. I certainly take the opportunity, whenever it's presented to me, to talk to young Australians about the opportunities that they will have in their future through the decisions we're making in the defence industry. That's the exciting career pathway that young Australians can look forward to, thanks to the decisions that we're making. There will be tens of thousands of new jobs created in the defence industry sector in years to come because of the important, strong decisions that we have made and will continue to make to resource the armed forces with the capability that they need and deserve and produce that capability in this country so that we're also creating an economic dividend from that expenditure. I commend the motion.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (12:50): One of the disadvantages of being the last speaker on a motion such as this is there have been so many good speeches prior to me that they've taken all the reasonable material that you can possibly be expected to say on this! I want to commend the member for Herbert. I have not served my nation in the armed forces, and I have an admiration and respect for those people who choose to voluntarily put their lives on the line so that this nation may continue to be a free and fair nation. Our freedom is a direct result of their sacrifice, not just those people who have served in the armed forces in this parliament but who have served in the armed forces throughout the ages. It is, indeed, the ultimate sacrifice that you can make. The member for Herbert has done that and, as the member for Moncrieff pointed out, at great personal sacrifice both to himself and to his family. That he chooses to serve his community and our nation now in this place is both a testament to him and a testament to this parliament.
The member for Stirling also has served our nation, incredibly admirably. I think the most extraordinary thing about the member for Stirling is the process he went through in applying to be a member of the Special Air Service, the SAS. The SAS was only expecting their usual attrition rates. They started off with 50 people, expecting only to have five or six left at the end of it. Unfortunately, in that particular batch, there were 14 people who made it through what sounds like hell on earth, if the truth be told. So he was drawn out of a hat and told that despite having gone through the process of the six or seven weeks of applying for the SAS he wouldn't be accepted, because too many people had done too well in that particular group. That, I think, is an extraordinary sacrifice. But his contribution to this debate cannot be easily forgotten, nor his contribution to our nation.
The member for Moncrieff, the member for Sturt and the member for Lyons have all pointed out the extraordinary benefits of this unprecedented growth, in peacetime, of expenditure on armed forces hardware. In my electorate, we have HIFraser, Universal Seals, North Sails and Incat Crowther, who have designed an incredibly innovative naval craft that is being used in the US. It is being built by Birdon, which is in the member for Lyons' electorate. The point the members for Moncrief and Sturt have both made is that it's not just the work and the number of people who get employed through this process that's important, it's the research, the design, the development of the intellectual property here in Australia. This program, this unprecedented build-up in military expenditure, is allowing those companies to do this.
One hastens to add that a lot of the intellectual property that Birdon has been able to develop in their $¾ billion contract with the US Navy has gone into their contract with Sydney Ferries, where they've developed new ferries here, in Australia, for public transport. So they will be combat ready, if ever they are needed to—that, of course, is not true. I just thought I'd throw that in. In any case—
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: Well, you guys weren't reacting. I was a bit concerned that you were taking it seriously! The member for Gellibrand made an extraordinarily good point, which is that, increasingly, the threats we will face will be those on the internet. There'll be cybersecurity threats. I think, of the iPhone and smart phones generally, which were based on 11 key pieces of technology, they were all originated and developed by DARPA, the US military's secret unit, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. I honestly believe we can use this program to ensure that we are able and allowing companies to move forward and develop IP, especially in artificial intelligence, that will put Australia at the forefront of the coming revolution, in that particular part of the economy. It's incredibly important we do that, because it will be very disruptive and we need to be at the forefront of it. I commend this motion to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ) (12:55): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and resumption of the debate will made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Arts: National Institutions
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (12:55): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) in April 2019 the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories tabled a report on its inquiry into Canberra's national institutions, titled Telling Australia's Story—and why it is important;
(b) the report made 20 recommendations and was informed by some 83 submissions and several public hearings with witnesses from every major cultural institution;
(c) the report's conclusions and recommendations were supported across the political spectrum;
(d) unfortunately, 16 months on from the tabling of the report the Government is yet to respond to its recommendations;
(e) Government inaction on these recommendations is having a detrimental effect on the operation of these national treasures, including but not limited to the:
(i) National Gallery, which is expected to lose about 10 per cent of their workforce;
(ii) National Library, which has modified its collecting strategy to remove Japan, Korea, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar from its list of priority countries from its Asia Collection; and
(iii) National Australian Archives, which is preparing to lose large sections of its 117,000 hours of magnetic tape archives unless additional resources for digitisation are provided; and
(f) these challenges outlined in the report are being further amplified by current COVID-19 restrictions;
(2) recognises that Canberra's cultural institutions play a critical role in telling our collective national story; and
(3) calls on the Government to immediately table a substantive and detailed response to the report's recommendations.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is there a seconder?
Mr Brian Mitchell: I second the motion.
Mr DAVID SMITH: In March 2018 the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories announced an inquiry into Canberra's national institutions. The inquiry not only held hearings and received submissions but also provided an opportunity for committee members to participate in site visits to see firsthand the challenges facing the institutions in managing their collections, providing access to them and ensuring they had appropriate staff with skills required in largely expert roles. I was a latecomer to the inquiry, joining the committee halfway through the year, but had the opportunity to talk to archivists, curators, librarians, sound engineers and others doing their best in their work within, and in some cases across, institutions. It was obvious how thin the resourcing was and, as a result of ongoing funding cuts, the risk it created to these institutions if the issues weren't addressed.
The National Gallery of Australia told the committee it was at a crossroads after years of efficiency dividends had a marked effect. Their submission noted:
Funding reductions have put the core purposes of the NGA at risk, with questions around financial sustainability, caring for the collection and the planning of our loans programs under constant review.
The NGA can no longer find more efficiencies. The National Library of Australia's submission said the caps on staff levels created 'significant challenges', the Australian War Memorial noted the unsustainable impact of the efficiency dividend and the National Archives noted the impact of these measures were cumulative.
The committee finalised its report early in 2019, and it was tabled before the election in April 2019. The report had support across the political spectrum for its conclusions and recommendations. As the chair, Ben Moreton MP, noted:
A strong and vibrant collection of national institutions is critically important for the continued success of our democracy and nation.
… … …
These institutions tell our Australian story. It is essential that we understand that story, learn from it and use it to build confidence and pride for the present and future.
The report made 20 recommendations, including recommendations around the resourcing of the institutions that required urgent attention. These included a reassessment of the average staffing level caps to reduce the skills retention impacts the caps are having and the perverse cost impact of having to rely on inefficient and expensive labour hire arrangements, the adoption of measures to offset the disproportionate impact of the efficiency dividend, understanding the challenge of digitisation of analogue audiovisual items across the collections by 2025, and the need for a clear and coherent whole-of-government strategy across institutions to get this done.
The report has just sat there since April 2019, gathering dust without a government response to any of the recommendations. The inaction, particularly around the resourcing of critical skills across the institutions, has already had significant consequences. In June this year the National Gallery of Australia announced that they could make up to 12 per cent of their staff redundant. In July this year the National Archives warned that they were preparing to lose large sections of more than 100,000 hours of audiovisual magnetic tape archives as they did not have the resources to digitise the archive by 2025. And in May this year the National Library announced that they had removed key Asian countries from their list of collection priorities, closed their Asian collections rooms and cancelled their subscriptions to hundreds of Asian periodicals.
As James Spigelman, the former chief justice of New South Wales and former NLA chair, put it:
This is not a propitious time to proclaim to the world that Australians are not interested in India, Japan, Korea and all the nations of mainland Southeast Asia. That, however, is what the National Library of Australia has done by announcing it will stop its systematic collecting of materials about all these nations, because … financial restraints force the library to prioritise … The blame should be correctly attributed … No-one said that the library's funding was being cut. Rather, year after year, it was subject to what was called the "efficiency dividend". That this could be imposed year after year for decades, without effect on the delivery of services, as implied in the language used, was and is delusional.
At such a point in our nation's story it is critical that we support those institutions entrusted to tell our story and give us a better understanding of our place in the world. The government needs to urgently respond to the report's recommendations before more of our institutions' work is lost or left to wither on the vine.
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (13:00): I want to thank the member for Bean for raising this very, very important question. I have recently become the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, of which the member for Bean is also a member. I look forward to the ongoing investment in these very, very important institutions, these nationally important institutions around Canberra that tell Australia's story and why it is important. I would like to quote the member for Tangney, who was the chair at the time the report was tabled:
Canberra is the heart of the nation, and home to some of its most iconic national institutions. These institutions tell our Australian story. It is essential that we understand that story, learn from it and use it to build confidence and pride for the present and future … This report considers the shared value of Canberra's national institutions in conserving, interpreting and facilitating engagement with Australia's history, culture and national identity.
I do want to respond to the motion that has been put. The government acknowledges the work of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories, and it's important to thank that committee for the report Telling Australia's story—and why it's important. As the motion has identified, the report has made 20 recommendations. I have been consulting with my colleagues about these recommendations, and they are directly relevant to several portfolios across government.
The government's full response to the Telling Australia's story report will be tabled in the coming months, but I do not accept that there has been inaction by the government when it comes to supporting our national institutions. In fact, just recently I had the great pleasure of riding a bike around the inner section of Canberra, which actually takes you quite a way out, to look at some of the national capital. It was wonderful. I hopped on the bike and followed the National Capital Authority's chief planning officer—he rides much faster than I do—and I enjoyed seeing all our wonderful buildings and reflecting on what that holds for us as a nation. It was very exciting, and I can highly recommend it to anyone.
The government's full response to the Telling Australia's story report will be tabled in coming months, as I said. Over the past three years, however, the government has announced additional funding of more than $700 million in support of the national institutions in Canberra. There's $63.48 million throughout the Public Service Modernisation Fund to support the following Canberra based institutions: the Australian War Memorial, the National Capital Authority, the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia, the National Gallery of Australia, the National Library of Australia, the National Museum of Australia, the National Portrait Gallery and Old Parliament House. If there are people in my electorate who have not been to Canberra and have not had the pleasure of seeing those buildings, I encourage you, once we're through this pandemic, to make a trip. It is wonderful.
$16.6 million has been provided to the National Gallery of Australia as part of a package to deliver $25.6 million in capital works. That was in the 2017-18 budget. There was $498 million for the expansion of the Australian War Memorial in 2018-19 budget; $63.8 million uplift on ongoing funding for the National Gallery of Australia in 2018-19; $15.1 million to enable Questacon to expand its education and outreach programs in the 2019-20 budget; and $10 million for the National Library of Australia's Treasured Voices digitisation fund in the 2019-20 budget. There's $7.36 million to deliver capital works at the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia, the National Library of Australia, the National Museum of Australia and the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House. There's $12.7 million to deliver capital works at the National Film and Sound Archive of Australia, the National Library of Australia, the National Museum of Australia and the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House. And there's $5.5 million to the National Film and Sound Archive to enable it to digitise its at-risk audiovisual collection. There's a further $8 million to the National Library of Australia for it to continue its ongoing delivery of the Trove platform. Many of the national icons of Australia are to be found in this wonderful Australian Capital Territory, and I would encourage all members to visit these sites.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (13:05): 'Big-sky beauty, breezy civic pride and a decidedly hipster underbelly' is how TheNew York Times described Canberra, home to a slew of national institutions that the Gray Lady has called 'excellent'. As a Canberra local this praise comes as no surprise. I'm lucky enough to live in the same city as Old Parliament House and to be able to take my boys to the National Portrait Gallery when we have a free afternoon. When you flip through the Lonely Planet's guide to the top activities in Canberra, the list is littered with national institutions. That iconic travel guide states:
Some of the nation's best art galleries are here, and there's plenty of history too, both past and in the making – visitors can see Australian democracy in action at Parliament House before exploring its bygone days at some of the city's many museums.
So it baffles me that those opposite would do nothing about the problems facing Canberra's national institutions 16 months after they were raised in this important committee report.
Almost a year and a half ago a report was tabled in this place Telling Australia’s Story: and why it’s important. Almost a year and a half has gone by without any response from those opposite. These national institutions are the places that connect Australians to a sense of identity and that teach us who we were and where we're going as a country. To go into the National Museum of Australia is to be transported back but with an eye to the future. Among the 20 recommendations that those opposite are yet to respond to, the report listed concerns about ensuring Canberra's national institutions have enough support and resources not just to survive but also to grow, evolve and thrive.
These places are a vital part of Canberra. They attract millions of tourists to the Bush Capital every year. They bring essential funds into the ACT economy. In that sense, national institutions bring capital to the capital. But they're more than that. Take our National Gallery. It's sometimes easy to forget the transcendent power of the arts. Great art inspires us and reminds us of what truly matters in our lives and can take us to new places and evoke emotions. You can stand before Blue Poles and think about the conservative knockers who bagged Gough Whitlam when he purchased it for what's now regarded as a bargain price. What's happened to our National Gallery under the coalition? There have been job losses. What's happened to the National Library? There have been job losses. What's happened to the National Archives of Australia? There have been job losses and potentially the loss of large sections of 117,000 hours of magnetic tape archives unless they get the resources they need to digitise it. That's our country's history potentially lost forever.
We didn't need the coalition's lack of response to this report to show us what we've been told budget after budget. Those opposite don't care about Canberra in the way former conservative leaders like Menzies, Gorton—who even settled in Canberra after his prime ministership—and Fraser once did. Much like how they've literally decimated the Public Service, they're now starving the national institutions. The report outlines concerns on staffing reductions, citing the impact those cuts have had on the mental and physical health of those remaining. It speaks to how individual institutions don't have the money or the capacity to properly maintain their facilities.
I'm proud to stand as an ACT representative alongside the member for Bean, the member for Canberra and Senator Gallagher: Labor representatives for the national capital, demanding action for the national capital and cultural institutions. As the member for Bean's motion states, these institutions play a critical role in telling our collective national story. They help forge our future. Those opposite need to ensure that important parts of our country's identity have the support they need to carry on this vital work. Maybe they need to open that great Australian tour guide Lonely Planet, which, in describing Canberra, asks, 'Where else can you find superb dining and world-class cultural experiences only a short stroll from wildlife filled bushland reserves and serene lakeshore views?' Where else indeed?
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (13:10): I rise to speak on the member for Bean's motion on Canberra's national institutions. I want to reject some of the partisan claims within it and acknowledge the very substantial commitment that the federal government is making to our national institutions. This commitment has continued to develop and enhance our national institutions so that they can be utilised and cherished by future generations. I think both sides of politics would acknowledge that that is what we're here to do. As has already been acknowledged, the government's response to the report will be tabled in the coming months. I'm sure that even the Labor Party have noticed that we are in the middle of a global pandemic. Other areas of government—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr SIMMONDS: I take the interjection from the Labor member sitting opposite. He called the COVID-19 global pandemic an excuse. It's extraordinary. Perhaps Labor have failed to notice that we are in a global pandemic that has unprecedented health and economic challenges to it. As a result, much of the federal government has been diverted to make sure that we securely shepherd Australians through this crisis.
The government is still absolutely committed to ensuring the continued preservation and enhancement of our national institutions. Over the last three financial years over $700 million has been funded to support our national memorials, galleries and libraries. This government is committed to the continued enhancement of these national treasures, and I would like to commend Minister Fletcher for his outstanding efforts in this regard.
As I said, the Labor Party's suggestion that the Morrison government is not fully committed to the continued development of our national institutions is unfounded and entirely false. In the last three years alone the government has funded $498 million for the expansion of the Australian War Memorial, $63.8 million for the National Gallery of Australia, $10 million for the National Library of Australia's Treasured Voices digitisation fund and $12.7 million for the National Film and Sound Archives of Australia. These are just a few examples of this government's continuing commitment to our national institutions. They are being backed by significant funding on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia. These are very significant commitments.
In putting together this motion those opposite had to clutch at straws in order to criticise the government's steady hand and proactive administration of our nation's cultural assets. I suppose I do understand. It suits the narrative of the Labor Party to try to paint all members on this side as cultural vandals, but the facts simply do not bear it out. Every time they try to run this argument they run afoul of the facts of the matter and the amount of money that the Morrison government on this side of the chamber is putting towards these national institutions.
I would like to particularly note the motion's categorisation of the Library's reorganisation of its priority countries in the Asia Collection. The Library is not—as those opposite have claimed—dumping vast collections from the countries named in the motion. Those opposite would have you believe that they are just leaving them to waste. These existing collections will not go to waste. This enormously important resource will continue to be available for future generations. Any attempt to portray the National Library's reorganisation of its collections as a loss of cultural assets would be to ignore the fact that the public will still have full access to all the collections that were once featured.
The Library is, however, continuing to expand its focus on our closest neighbours—Indonesia, China and the Pacific states. It would be short-sighted not to recognise that Australia needs to do more to focus on its closest neighbours. The government is already instituting the Pacific Step-up. This is just another part of that. The National Library is reflecting the shift by maintaining a responsible emphasis on Indonesia, China and the South Pacific in the collections going forward. This exemplifies Australia's commitment to, and continued friendship with, our Pacific neighbours and the way that we are leaning into this friendship. I'm sure that all members in this place would commend that friendship and our important interest in it. We will continue to support these national institutions going forward.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Sitting suspended from 13:15 to 16:00
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Kingston Electorate: Recycling
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:00): Recycling and reusing are on the minds of many of my electors in the area of the southern suburbs of Adelaide. Of course it's also on the minds of councils and the Southern Region Waste Resource Authority, who have a plan—since recycling is becoming more and more difficult overseas—to build a recycling facility right in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. Supported by the City of Onkaparinga, City of Marion and City of Holdfast Bay, this project will create 37 jobs and importantly not be just a facility for recycling material but also a facility that will reuse those materials for commercial outcomes.
This sounds like a great project. Therefore, I am deeply worried to hear that the state government and the state minister, Minister Speirs, who has previously said that recycling is good for jobs and good for the economy, are not willing to back this project. As a result, we're seeing no investment from the Commonwealth government. The state and Commonwealth must sit down and work out how to make this project go ahead. This recycling facility will mean jobs and it will mean better environmental outcomes. The Prime Minister likes to talk about this. The state government likes to talk about this. But we are not seeing action on the ground. It's time for those two governments to get together, work with the Cities of Onkaparinga, Marion and Holdfast Bay and deliver this project for the benefit of our environment and the benefit of jobs and our community. (Time expired)
Member for Bonner
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (16:02): Twenty-one August marked a special milestone for me: 10 consecutive years as the federal member for Bonner. While I served the electorate for 13 years all up, there was a brief break between 2007 and 2010. During this electorate imposed sabbatical, my passion and determination for the community never wavered. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank the electorate of Bonner and share what an honour it has been to spend 10-plus years representing them.
The biggest honour, however, is the way this community has allowed me to be their voice in parliament. I've met some incredible people on this journey, and every day brings new excitement, new challenges and new goals for my corner of South-East Queensland. In 2010 when I was returned to the seat of Bonner, I delivered a first speech for the second time, something that I've never taken for granted. In that speech I shared how former Senator Neville Bonner, whom this electorate is named after, embodied perseverance and a commitment to all Australians. In that spirit of perseverance and commitment to the community, I promised to serve the electorate faithfully and tirelessly.
As a father to my two sons, Zachary and Micah, and husband to my wife, Fang, you are a big part of the reason I love representing the community. Your support and love for where we live drives me to make our community and our country a better place. Whether I'm visiting small business owners, meeting with constituents or speaking in parliament, every day is about standing up for the aspirations of all Australians.
Dobell Electorate: Mountain Biking
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (16:03): On 22 August I joined the official opening of Ourimbah mountain bike park's newest trail, Amaroo, with Labor Councillor Jillian Hogan. The 1.6 kilometre flow trail combines a smooth, wide track with pumping sections, steep burns, jumps and rollers to create an experience that beginners can enjoy as much as the pros. This new trail was funded by the Central Coast Mountain Bike Club with support through my Stronger Communities Program and a grant from David Harris MP, the state member for Wyong. Secretary of the club, Leif Arnebark, told me, 'Mountain biking is growing rapidly and has an enormous take-up within the general population as a recreational activity. It is an ideal fit for active lifestyles that fits hand in glove with sustainability goals and a green future.' I couldn't agree more. Being outdoors and active is good for your health and wellbeing and fantastic for our community.
Free, local activities like that offered at Ourimbah are even more important as COVID-19 continues to unfold. Congratulations to President Paul, Secretary Leif, Vice President Dee and Trail Manager Paul for your advocacy and support of mountain biking on the coast.
With more locals getting active and outdoors due to the pandemic, the timing couldn't have been better for the launch of the new flow trail at Ourimbah mountain bike park. I hope that, when restrictions ease, mountain bikers from outside the coast will add the Central Coast Ourimbah mountain bike park to their itineraries and take a few runs down Amaroo. I thank my cousin Damien and his son Ollie for coming along.
Port Lincoln Leisure Centre
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:05): Next Thursday we'll mark the opening of the $10.1 million upgrade of the Port Lincoln Leisure Centre. I'll give a little history on the Port Lincoln Leisure Centre. It was built as a public facility out at the marina quite some time ago. It hit hard times. Council sold it off about 17 or 18 years ago. At that stage it was bought by Mr Sam Sarin of the tuna industry fame. Sam was a great philanthropist. He passed away earlier this year. He operated that centre for 14 years. I'm absolutely confident that he made a loss every year that he operated, but he did that for the Port Lincoln community. Then he gave the council the opportunity to buy it back after 14 years of operation.
It really needed an upgrade, so we stepped forward with a $4.4 million grant from the Commonwealth. There was $5.3 million from the Port Lincoln City Council, $250,000 from the fabulous local branch of Bendigo Bank and $190,000 from the state government. They have refurbished the indoor pool and splash centre for the kids. There's a stadium, three squash courts, room for a gym and clubrooms, an entry, offices and lift. It will serve Port Lincoln now for another generation. I congratulate the council and all those involved. I'm looking forward to it.
Aged Care
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (16:06): Aged care has quite rightly been the priority of this parliament both this week and last week. I know that the experiences of our older Australians during this pandemic are front and centre in the minds of many members in this place. In the time available to me today I want to really press the government to do much more and be much more effective in the home-care side of aged-care services as well. We know that, if people are supported to stay in their own home longer, they feel more settled, have happier lives and are able to have some dignity in their life. I acknowledge the great work done by so many of our residential care providers, but home care is an important option. In my area Chris and his team at the Multicultural Communities Council of the Illawarra and Giovanna and her team at the Italian Social Welfare Organisation are delivering frontline services to help people stay in their homes, but there are still too many people waiting either to get funding for their package or to get services.
We know it works. We know it's a good option. The older people in our communities deserve this. I'm saying to the government: 'Please stop taking small measures. Get on with providing a good solution to support home care.'
Braddon Electorate: Ten Days on the Island
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (16:50): The opening ceremony of the Ten Days on the Island festival will be bigger and better than ever thanks to a $95,000 boost from the federal government. In 2021 Ten Days on the Island will celebrate its 20th anniversary. In that time it has establishing itself as one of Australia's leading arts and cultural events. It is based in the great city of Burnie in my electorate of Braddon. The festival routinely hosts world-renowned artists and performers whilst also providing young and aspiring Tasmanian artists with a platform to showcase their craft. Ten Days on the Island Artistic Director, Lindy Hume, said the festival was delighted to receive the funding, which will allow them to deliver Mapali, the dawn gathering, the opening event for Ten Days on the Island in 2021.
The biannual festival has become a major feature on Australia's events calendar, drawing thousands of local and interstate visitors. The flow-on effects are equally important. This will provide retail and hospitality businesses across the north-west with a timely boost as we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic. I can't wait to join the community on the Burnie foreshore at dawn on 5 March to share this marvellous cultural celebration and welcome the sunrise.
Bendigo Electorate: JobKeeper Payment
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (16:09): Things are tough in Victoria, particularly in my area of Bendigo, because of the health crisis, and the stage 3 restrictions are having an impact on local businesses, industry and jobs. I want to acknowledge the efforts that many are making to keep going, particularly a lot of our businesses in hospitality and retail. Not being able to have patrons in their restaurants for the good part of six months, they have continued to do takeaway service—and hats off to them. Businesses like the Belmont Hotel and Masons, a hatted restaurant in our electorate, and new businesses like Harvest and Ms Batterhams are all doing their best to try and stay afloat. But, whilst the takeaway side is proving to be somewhat successful, it is a fraction of what their usual income is. That is why I am so disappointed that the Treasurer of this country is choosing to pick fights and place blame, rather than continuing to keep JobKeeper at the higher rate.
We cannot avoid the fact that we are in a health crisis and that, to ensure the health and safety of our citizens, the restrictions in Victoria need to continue. I would urge the Treasurer to listen to the concerns of local businesses in Victoria and to work with the state to keep JobKeeper going at the higher rate.
Barker Electorate: Roads
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:11): In June 2017 the federal government announced $1.52 million to upgrade the intersection of Sturt Highway and Holder Top Road at Waikerie in the iconic area of South Australia of the Riverland. It was a welcome announcement. The funding was made available via the federal government's Black Spot program and was provided to the South Australian Department for Transport and Infrastructure to undertake works to improve safety at this notorious intersection. There were significant delays at the state level and work didn't begin for some time—to the community's and indeed my own immense frustration.
With works now more or less complete, one critical piece of the puzzle is missing—a left-hand turn slip lane. I am immensely disappointed that, after waiting years for this intersection to be made safe, we have effectively substituted one danger for another one. The state department has now reduced the speed in the vicinity of the intersection to address this safety issue that the failure of installing the safety slip lane has provided. I have been speaking DPTI to keep updated on how they're planning on addressing their failure. I am pleased to say that the state department has now agreed to undertake some design work needed to develop an accurate cost of the works required to remedy this situation. The state department informs me that the design work that is needed in order to develop an accurate cost of any future works will be completed in October. This is promising progress and I will keep constituents updated.
Cambodia: Human Rights
Mr HILL (Bruce) (16:12): I want to call out the deteriorating human rights situation in Cambodia, where the authoritarian Hun Sen regime is using COVID-19 as a cover for further abuses. On 31 July, echoing the 2017 arrest of opposition leader Kem Sokha, Cambodian authorities descended on the home of Rong Chhun, president of the Cambodian Confederation of Unions, taking him away and threatening his family with arrest. Rong Chhun now faces up to two years in prison. The regime claims his arrest was because he made comments exaggerating information, which caused a disruption to social security. This is regime code for, he said something that the government didn't like about the border negotiations with Vietnam.
But Rong Chhun's real crime is being an effective unionist, upsetting crony mates of the regime. He has been advocating on behalf of thousands of workers at the Violet Apparel factory, which supplied some of the world's leading clothes brands. The factory closed in July but failed to pay workers what they are owed. Authorities have doubled down, arresting and charging Suong Sophorn, a Cambodian political leader, as well as Chhoeun Daravy and Hun Vannak, members of a local environmental youth organisation who spoke out demanding Rong Chhun's release. The European Commission is taking action against Cambodia, and Australia must speak out and consider similar actions against the Cambodian regime and officials for their continued violations of human rights and call for these individuals' immediate release from detention.
I visited Cambodia last August and met with—I won't say with whom, to protect their identifies—a range of incredibly brave labour and civil rights and political activists. They deserve more support from the Australian government.
Coleman, Mr Stan
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:14): Last week, I spoke in this chamber on Vietnam Veterans' Day. Today, I'd like to draw the chamber's attention to Mr Stan Coleman. Stan was born on 3 February 1924 and served in the Air Force during World War II. He was discharged on 2 May 1947. I had the pleasure of presenting Stan with the 75th anniversary medallion and certificate on Friday 14 August, and 15 August was the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II. It is with regret that I inform the chamber today that Stan passed away last Friday night, aged 96. I'd like to send my thoughts and prayers to his family; in particular, his wife, Rita. Rita served in the Women's Royal Australian Navy on HMAS Moreton. Rest in peace, Stan.
Chifley Electorate: Cockrem, Mr Paul
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (16:15): I would like to recognise outgoing Richard Johnson Anglican School principal, Paul Cockrem, for his contribution to education in the Chifley electorate. Paul helped established the school as its founding principal, with Richard Johnson Anglican School officially opening in 1997 with 26 kindergarten to year 4 students. From very humble beginnings, of which the school is rightly proud, it began with a demountable for one teacher and then it grew, under Paul's leadership, to cater for almost 1,000 kindergarten to year 12 students. Paul has been a fixture of the school for almost a quarter of a century, but, importantly, he was the architect of its future expansion. Richard Johnson school opened its second campus in 2016, catering for 176 primary school students, with scope to accommodate for the ever-growing north-west corridor. Speaking of his retirement, Richard Johnson school's assistant principal, Jenny Clay, said something that stuck in my mind. She said that he refused to believe that students in western Sydney could not achieve at the highest level and change the lives and aspirations of countless numbers of people in our community, and there is no better foundation stone than belief. This can power so much to be achieved within that one school, and Paul had that in spades. I've had great opportunities to get to know him and respect his work. I wish him all the very best and thank him enormously for his contribution.
Johnson, Ms Bec
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (16:16): One of the great privileges of this job is getting to meet local heroes out there in our communities who are giving so much. Also, sometimes we get to raise their profile, and today I would like to do that on behalf of Bec Johnson, whom I nominated last week for an Australian of the Year award. Bec set up and runs, as the CEO, the Type 1 Diabetes Family Centre in my electorate of Stirling. Bec has raised over $85,000 for the centre via her campaign Life Without Limits by completing ultramarathon swims. I joined Bec on one of her ultramarathon swims. Bec is a type 1 diabetes sufferer herself, but has been absolutely smashing it. When I say 'I joined', I actually joined for the first two kilometres and that was it for me, and Bec was already 200 metres ahead of me! Bec is out there changing the lives of kids and families who are living with type 1 diabetes. She's set up a very innovative model, so I'm working with Bec to champion a greater subsidy for continuous glucose monitoring—something this government has recently invested more in—and also to support parents who are caring for their children with type 1, sometimes on a full-time basis. Bec, I hope that you get the recognition you deserve, but you are already a hero to me and all of the kids and families in the type 1 diabetes community.
Werriwa Electorate: Road Tolls
Ms STANLEY ( Werriwa — Opposition Whip ) ( 16 : 18 ): Sydney now boasts the most tolled roads in the world, and residents can soon expect three more toll roads. Once again, the New South Wales Liberal government is ignoring the needs of south-western Sydney electorates like Werriwa. The New South Wales government has levied a $6.95 toll on an existing road, all in order to prop up their budget blowouts, and there are delays on projects, like WestConnex and the Sydney light rail. There's no grace period and there's no cashback for this toll. Thousands of residents have signed my M5 East petition calling for this unfair toll to be scrapped. They've also contacted me directly. They've told me the increase of $3,300 a year to their family budget to pay for the toll is unsustainable, and that is taking into account the rebate they get for their registration. Especially during a recession, when family budgets are so stretched, to add insult to injury, the private operator gets an annual increase of four per cent. It's time the state government supported the residents of South-West Sydney and not expect them to pay for their mistakes, and it's time the local Liberal members of parliament speak up and say where they stand on this important issue. Their current silence on this is deafening, but they won't be able to duck and hide for cover from this one forever.
Lindsay Electorate: Adult Learners Week
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (16:19): I want everyone in my community of Lindsay to have the opportunity to learn. regardless of their age. That is why I am really pleased to support Adult Learners Week. Learning has the ability to improve lives, from improving health outcomes and wellbeing to building confidence and staying informed and involved. We want to invest in lifelong learners. In my electorate of Lindsay I have connected with local organisations supporting lifelong learners, like the Nepean Community College. Eric and the team run a tech-savvy seniors' program for Australians. They have kept the program going throughout coronavirus, taking their digital literacy classes to Zoom, and they even have a 93-year-old woman who has continued with the classes because she wanted to learn how to connect with her grandchildren online. There are so many opportunities available for people in Western Sydney to ignite their passion for lifelong learning. We have Western Sydney University, TAFE and community colleges. I am really proud that they are in the electorate of Lindsay. In Adult Learners Week opportunities to learn have never been more accessible, from classes around computer skills to getting started with online banking, cooking, arts and crafts, general education and job skills. For more information or to book a class you can go to adultlearnersweek.org. I hope everyone in the community of Lindsay always gets an opportunity to learn, regardless of age.
JobKeeper Payment
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (16:21): Recessions hit the poor hardest, which is why Australia followed many countries around the world in implementing a wage subsidy scheme. But a scheme designed to reduce inequality is being misused by a small number of firms, who are channelling it to executive bonuses. Accent Group received $13 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Daniel Agostinelli a $1.2 million bonus. IDP Education received $4 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Andrew Barkla a $600,000 bonus. Last year he was Australia's highest paid CEO, taking home $37 million. Star Casino received $64 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Matt Bekier an equity bonus worth $800,000. SeaLink received $8 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Clinton Feuerherdt a $500,000 bonus. Then there is 'dividend keeper', diverting money for workers into shareholder payouts. Furniture firm Nick Scali received $4 million from Australian and New Zealand taxpayers. Its increased dividend will deliver $2 million to the Scali family. 1300SMILES got $2 million in JobKeeper and paid out $3 million to shareholders. Managing director Daryl Holmes owns two-thirds of the company and so will get about $2 million, roughly what his company received in JobKeeper support. As Ownership Matters' Dean Paatsch puts it: 'I don't think it was ever the intention of the government to subsidise executive salaries'. If you're getting taxpayer subsidies, the CEO should not be getting a bonus.
Reid Electorate: Education
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (16:22): While it has been a challenging period, many school communities in my electorate have experienced major milestones this year, which I would like to acknowledge. Rosebank College in Five Dock is farewelling their principal, Mr Tom Galea, who, after 16 years of service to the school, has announced his retirement. As a former Rosebank College student, I can attest to the fact that Mr Galea has transformed the school in his time as principal. I wish him all the best for the future, knowing the school will uphold the legacy he is leaving behind. I would like to congratulate Mrs Helen Elliott, Principal of All Hallows Catholic Primary School in Five Dock, who is a finalist in the Australian Education Awards. She has been nominated in the category Primary School Principal of the Year for a non-government school. I wish her all the very best for this exciting ceremony.
Over in Strathfield, Santa Sabina College will soon have significant safety upgrades as a result of the Morrison government's Safer Communities Fund. Congratulations to their principal, Ms Paulina Skerman, on successfully gaining a federal grant of $345,000 for new security fencing and gates as well as CCTV. Likewise, I would like to acknowledge St Mary's Catholic Primary School in Concord, which has received $18,000 through the Morrison government's Local Schools Community Fund for a new shade structure. It was a pleasure to meet the principal, Anna Marsella, who introduced me to the kindy students, who are enjoying the new shade sail.
Northern Territory: Australian Football League
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (16:24): Over the last two Saturdays in the Northern Territory we've been privileged to host three fixtures of the AFL. In the first game, last Saturday week, Richmond defeated Essendon in an entertaining clash at the TIO Stadium in Darwin for an historic Dreamtime clash. The inaugural Dreamtime game in the Northern Territory featured a build-up befitting an enormous occasion, which it was. Both Richmond and Essendon have enormous support in northern Australia. There was a musical performance by Yirringa Yunupingu, followed by a powerful welcome to country from Richard Fejo, representing the Larrakia people. I recommend you watch this online.
The Tigers are a very popular team in the Northern Territory, due largely, in the first instance, to the playing career of Maurice Rioli, the winner of the Norm Smith Medal in 1982, and, of course, Michael Long played 190 games for the Bombers and won the 1993 Norm Smith Medal. In the second game, also in Darwin, Carlton had a comfortable 33-point win over the Gold Coast. Last Saturday, though, there was a game in my home town of Alice Springs, at Traeger Park, where we hosted Melbourne and St Kilda in a thriller, which favoured the Demons by three points.
What was important about the three events in Darwin and Alice Springs was the engagement with the local community and the importance to the local community of having the games in those places. They are very widely supported. The AFL is central to the lives of many in the north.
Shadie, Mr Kenneth George, OAM
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:25): It's not every community that can boast someone who has made a cultural contribution to Australia of global proportions, but not every community has a man like third-generation Brooklyn identity Ken Shadie, who passed away in June. He was the co-writer, along with Paul Hogan and John Cornell, of the original Crocodile Dundee film. 'That's not a knife. This is a knife,' is the most quoted line in Australian cinematographic history. Ken received an Academy Award nomination in 1987 for Best Original Screenplay, the only Academy Award for which the film was nominated. Ken was not part of the writing team for the subsequent Crocodile Dundee movies, and they are the poorer for his absence.
Before Crocodile Dundee, Ken also worked as a comedy writer for The Mavis Bramston Show, Number 96 and The Paul Hogan Show. He started his career as an office boy at 2UE and eventually became the head writer at Channel Seven. Ken was also a foundation member of the Australian Writers' Guild and remained a full voting member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences until his death.
Prior to Ken's writing career, he served for six years in the RAAF, and in 2015 he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for services to film and television, and for service to veterans in his community as president of the Brooklyn RSL sub-branch
Ken and his late wife, Pam, were legends in the Brooklyn community, and Ken served on numerous grants committees for me. I extend my condolences to Ken's sons, Peter and Tim, and their families, as we remember his wonderful life and service. May his memory be a blessing.
Oxley Electorate: Local Government
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:27): This afternoon I wish to draw to the attention of the parliament the issue of illegal dumping of rubbish and cancelled kerbside collection services thanks to an outrageous decision by the LNP Brisbane City Council. Residents of the Centenary Suburbs in the Jamboree Ward and the Forest Lake Ward—where I live—including Inala, Forrest Lake, Doolandella, Richlands and parts of Ellen Grove, come within the Oxley electorate. Residents have been let down, through a lack of care and value, by the lord mayor and by the local councillor responsible for this decision, LNP Councillor Kim Marx. Adrian Schrinner cancelled the annual free kerbside collection for 2019-20 without any justification. Because of this, our community has experienced an increase in illegal dumping, and residents are dissatisfied with the Good Neighbour Clean-up Scheme. Forrest Lake Ward residents will miss out on a total of three collection services. This is another unfair cut to our community.
Brisbane City Council's profile indicates that 11.3 per cent of residents are 65-plus and older, which means that an estimated 88.7 per cent are unable to benefit from the Good Neighbour Clean-up Scheme. The Good Neighbour Clean-up Scheme helps Brisbane's most vulnerable and elderly residents to remove unwanted goods from their home. So far the petition run by Councillor Charles Strunk has over 600 signatures. I call on the LNP council to reinstate this service, reverse these mean and unfair cuts and start delivering for the ratepayers of Brisbane to help keep our city clean and green.
COVID-19: Health
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:29): For every piece of government legislation that has ever been introduced, there are always the risks of detrimental unintended consequences causing more harm than the problem we're trying to fix. That is the art of good policy-making, to look at what those unintended consequences are and to weigh up the costs and benefits. That's why I was greatly concerned, last Friday, during the hearing of the Law Enforcement Committee, that we heard from the Australian Federal Police, 'The COVID lockdowns provide a rich environment for paedophiles.' The Australian Federal Police found that during the lockdown periods the activities of paedophiles have increased over 160 per cent.
All I am asking of our state government health officials is that when recommendations are being made about whether lockdowns should occur or not all these factors are weighed up. When it is said, 'We are locking down to keep people safe,' that is causing a lot of harm and distress to a lot of our youngest vulnerable children. We are seeing harm increased, we are seeing increases in self-harm and we are seeing undiagnosed illnesses go by. All this must be weighed up to make sure the policy is done in the best interests of the Australian people.
Brook, Mrs Gladys Joyce
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:30): If you're part of the Hawkesbury equestrian scene, chances are you've heard the name Joyce Brook. She is a strict officiator, and you won't be trotting around her arena with your shirt not tucked in. At 96, after nearly 70 years in the sport, travelling the world for it with late husband, Bob, and being inducted into the Equestrian Australia's Hall of Fame, Joyce is still passing on her wisdom to the next generation at the Sydney Showjumping Club—Sydney 'jump club'—in Clarendon.
She is adored by her community and a testament to the Hawkesbury's can-do attitude. But there is another story that not many people know about Joyce, and that's her World War II service. A friend of Joyce's alerted me to the fact that Corporal Gladys Joyce Lavender was a living World War II veteran. Joyce had been in the Women's Land Army but at 19 decided she wanted, in her words, 'the real thing'. She worked in the tunnels under the Conservatorium of Music. There are stories to tell, which I know her granddaughters, Rachael and Liz, are working very hard to extract from her. She hasn't spoken much about her World War II service, so it's only really just coming to light. It was a delight to present Joyce with a beautiful poppy commemorative medal, recognising the 75th anniversary of victory in the Pacific. She is one of 12,000 World War II veterans still with us in Australia, and I hope they all come forward to receive this recognition as a token of our appreciation for their service.
Aged Care
Gardiner, Mrs Val
Mr JOYCE (New England) (16:32): I rise to speak on behalf of people in aged-care facilities in my electorate. I have a great pleasure in being able to get round, in my electorate, to some of the 67 aged-care facilities that we have and to talk to a lot of the residents. I'd like to note one of the residents, Mrs Val Gardiner. She joined the National Party when she was 18 years old. At the first meeting she went to, I think, she became the secretary of it. She is now 88, in the aged-care facility in Tenterfield, so she's had 70 years involvement in serving her nation by reason of an involvement in a political party. I'm certain, across all political parties, we have similar people.
We have been very lucky in New England. We've had, I believe, a good result with the issues of dealing with the pandemic in our aged-care facilities. I say that because I think it's important that when someone's under the pump you go into bat for them. Currently, the minister is somehow being chided that he is personally responsible for the tragic deaths that are happening. He is not personally responsible for it any more than he is responsible for the happiness of people in their aged-care facilities. And I think it's unbecoming of this parliament to try to attack the person for something that is actually not their responsibility. Talk about the policy, talk about the set-up, but don't go for the person.
Macarthur Electorate: Koalas
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (16:33): We had a great win in Macarthur last week. I'd like to put on the record my appreciation to the New South Wales Minister for Energy and Environment, Matt Kean. Matt came out last October, at my invitation, to see Macarthur's koala colony, one of the only disease-free koala colonies in Australia. He saw several koalas, and a black snake, but he recognised the importance of preserving this colony. He has overridden the undemocratic local planning panel and he's declared a koala reserve for Macarthur, which is a fantastic win for us. I had previously invited the federal government's environment minister and previous environment ministers in our state to come and preserve our koalas. They did nothing. Matt Kean has been fantastic, so it's a great win for Macarthur. In particular I'd also like to thank Ricardo Lonza, the Total Environment Centre and Professor Robert Close, among many others, who have fought the worthy fight and preserved our koalas. I also want to thank our local members Greg Warren and Anoulack Chanthivong for their support. There's much more to be done, but it's a great win for Macarthur.
Penfolds
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:35): I rise to congratulate a local business in my electorate who have recently done very well in the world's best vineyards list that was released a few weeks ago. Of course I'm talking about Penfolds's Magill Estate in the heart of my electorate of Sturt, which has been found to be the 24th-best winery cellar door in the world. I think it's probably better than that, but being 24th is still impressive! Of course it topped the list for Australia, so according to this index it's the best winery cellar door in Australia. I agree with that and congratulate them on that achievement.
The winery was established in 1844, when Christopher and Mary Penfold emigrated to Adelaide from the United Kingdom. They brought some grape clippings with them. Christopher Penfold was a general practioner and he believed there was a lot of medicinal benefit in alcoholic beverages, so he initially produced ports and sherries and expanded into the table wines that they're very famous for today. Not many people would need to be told about Penfolds in recent years and the work of Max Schubert in the fifties and sixties producing the Grange Hermitage et cetera, but I congratulate them on quite rightly being recognised as the best winery in Australia.
Qantas
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (16:36): Darrin Lenton is a single dad with two children who lives in the community that I'm fortunate to represent. Darrin has worked for Qantas for 23 years. Last week Darrin and 2½ thousand of his co-workers were sacked by Australia's national airline. It's bad enough being sacked during a pandemic and it's bad enough that Qantas is receiving JobKeeper from the government for those workers that it sacked, but in the ultimate insult the work of the workers who are losing their jobs will be contracted out to a foreign corporation. The workers will come in, take their jobs and work for lower pay and conditions. It's corporate immorality at its worst. Many of these workers have loyally been working for Qantas for many, many decades.
Many of the workers who lost their jobs in Qantas and in the aviation sector more generally live in my electorate and the electorate of the Prime Minister. I'm asking the Prime Minister today: what is your government doing to stop companies contracting out the work of employees and then having other workers come in and take that work for lower pay and conditions? Labor had a policy at the last election to stop this. When is the Prime Minister going to stand up for the workers who work for Qantas and other companies in his electorate and stop their jobs being contracted out?
Hillarys Primary School
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (16:38): Hillarys Primary School in my electorate was built in 1973. Over the past 47 years the condition of the buildings has deteriorated to the point where the facilities present an occupational health and safety risk to both students and staff. I visited the school at the invitation of the principal, Trevor Mitchell, and observed firsthand the dilapidated conditions of the facilities, which include asbestos, water damage from roof leaks, dampness and mould, inadequate ventilation, uneven pavements posing tripping hazards, rusted roof trusses, flaking paint, the absence of handrails, cracked ceilings, dirty and slippery tiles in the toilets and even bricks falling down from walls. Many of the current building conditions are noncompliant with Australian building codes and disability access standards. It appears that the Hillarys Primary School has been overlooked in both of the most recent rounds of the state government's school maintenance program, announced in 2019 and on 3 August this year. This has the potential to expose the WA Department of Education to public liability claims. With an enrolment of 585 students, Hillarys Primary School requires urgent maintenance and refurbishment. I call upon the McGowan government to address the critical maintenance issues at Hillarys Primary School as a matter of priority.
Cork, Mr William Percy (Bill)
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (16:39): I take this opportunity to recognise the service of William Cork, a World War II veteran in my electorate of Freemantle and a member of the Cockburn RSL subbranch. On Saturday 15 August we marked the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, a conflict that involved enormous suffering and sacrifice. William Cork, or Bill, endured that experience, and we acknowledge and value his service. It's appropriate and welcome that Defence has created a commemorative medallion to mark the 75th anniversary, and I will feel humbled to present one to Bill on my return to Western Australia.
Bill enlisted in the British Army and served from 1939 to 1946. He began with the volunteer home defence guard and then undertook training as an anti-aircraft gunner with the Royal Air Force. He served with the Royal Artillery in the Middle East and Palestine. He is now 97 years old. He remembers watching the Luftwaffe fly across the Channel to strike targets in southern England. He remembers training with a broomstick before he was issued a rifle. He remembers being under fire and seeing the sand jump at his feet. He remembers, fortunately, the air raid in which he suffered a head wound from shrapnel. On return to the UK, Bill met his late wife, Jeanette, who served in the women's army transport service, and we also recognise her service. After the war they settled in Australia. As we hold fast in remembering the terrible harm and the costs of war, we also hold fast in our respect and gratitude for the service of our World War II veterans like Bill Cork.
Surf Life Saving New South Wales Awards
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (16:41): Stretching the coastline of New South Wales, from Hawks Nest in the south to Lighthouse Beach and below, Lake Cathie and Bonny Hills, we have surf lifesavers protecting locals and tourists alike. They patrol, they save lives, they administer first aid and educate our children about surf awareness and safety.
On Saturday, Surf Life Saving New South Wales held their state awards, and it's a privilege to recognise in this place the following people from my electorate: Volunteer of the Year Debbie Booth, from the Tea Gardens-Hawks Nest Surf Life Saving Club; Surf Lifesaver of the Year Tony Worton, from the Camden Haven Surf Life Saving Club; and Coach of the Year Steve Monaghan, from Wauchope-Bonny Hills Surf Life Saving Club. Congratulations to all 180 finalists on their outstanding achievements, and a big thank you to all of the people who turn out weekend after weekend, during holidays and peak tourism time, to keep safe our tourism industry, which relies on beaches, surf, sun and sand.
I recently visited Pacific Palms Surf Life Saving Club and they were full of praise for all of their crew members. Jeanette Allen and Michelle Ellis are the first all-women's crew to perform a rescue in the club's history. The IRB crew safely transported two people and their canoe back to land after they had become stuck on a sandbar. I was at Pacific Palms to inspect the work they've done with the funds from the 2020 volunteer grant program. The program— (Time expired)
Werriwa Electorate: Macquarie Fields Station
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (16:42): For years commuters at Macquarie Fields railway station have been calling on the New South Wales Liberal government to construct a lift at the station. It beggars belief that a station on the airport line remains without a lift to carry people and luggage. Commuters, including the elderly and the disabled, are forced to use a towering stairway.
Local state member Anoulack Chanthivong asked the New South Wales Liberal government why it still hasn't built a lift for the community. Their response is, 'Transport NSW acknowledges it will not achieve compliance targets as set out by disability standards for public transport.' That's an open admission that the New South Wales Liberal government will not meet its own disability access standards, failing people with disabilities and those less mobile.
I asked my community for their thoughts recently. I've received hundreds of responses and, unsurprisingly, none of them reflect positively on the New South Wales government. Among the respondents are mothers with prams, the elderly and the wheelchair bound, all who are forced to catch a bus to the neighbouring Glenfield or Ingleburn stations because they simply can't manage the stairs. For years, the community has been lobbying for fair and equal access to public transport, and for years the New South Wales Liberal government has ignored them. They have now openly admitted they won't meet their own access standards. Put simply, this is a disgrace.
Boothby Electorate: Darlington Upgrade
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (16:44): The Morrison Liberal government is busting congestion for my local community and for everyone living in Adelaide's south. In early August one of our key projects, the Darlington Upgrade, was completed, which will make a huge difference for tens of thousands of people travelling through this stretch of road each and every day. This $754 million project was made possible by a majority of funding from the Morrison government. The Darlington upgrade will save time for over 73,000 motorists who use Main South Road each day. It will save significant time for people in my local community who use Sturt Road, especially during peak hour, and it will save time for everyone who needs to get to Flinders University and Flinders Medical Centre.
The Darlington upgrade will be further enhanced by the imminent completion of the Flinders Link extension of the Tonsley rail line. Flinders Link will provide my local residents with a brand new public transport option to the city. It will provide doctors, nurses, patients and families with a new and easy way to get to Flinders Medical Centre, and it will link this hospital precinct with the city. It will provide Flinders University staff and students a brand new public transport option to the city, getting cars and buses off the roads.
To build on the Darlington upgrade the Morrison government has committed $2.7 billion in funding for the next stage of the North-South Corridor so we can finish what is one of the biggest infrastructure projects in South Australia's history. Our commitment to busting congestion for our community is clear.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The time being 4.45, in accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
National Police Remembrance Day
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (16:46): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 27 September 2020;
(2) acknowledges the crucial role police officers across Australia play in our local communities and the tremendous risk and sacrifice that comes with their duty;
(3) honours the lives and memories of those police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duty and specifically honours the tragic loss of four members of the Victorian Police Force, namely, Leading Senior Constable Lynette Rosemary Taylor, Senior Constable Kevin Neil King, Constable Glen Andrew Humphris and Constable Joshua Andrew Prestney, who tragically lost their lives in a multi-vehicle collision on Melbourne's Eastern Freeway;
(4) pays tribute to the families and friends of police officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout our nation's history;
(5) commends the valuable work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police officers who have fallen; and
(6) reaffirms its support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication in ensuring the peace and safety of our communities.
I start with the words: 'I sat down and watched the news and thought: 'My cousin runs up and down there. Just a split second and everyone's life changes.' This is a statement from the cousin of one of the police officers who was tragically killed in the line of duty in Victoria. I've chosen this statement because I think it puts in perspective the inherent dangers of everyday policing and the significant personal toll that it can have on families of police officers.
National Police Remembrance Day will be observed on 27 September this year. It is one of the most significant days in the national police calendar. As a nation, we pause to remember the police officers who have lost their lives in the execution of their duty and to honour the courage, commitment and dedication of all police members who have sworn to protect their communities. Policing comes with a high degree of risk and danger that thankfully most of us will never have to face. It truly takes a special type of person with a special type of courage to wear the police uniform, and we are forever indebted to those fine men and women who choose to do so and recognise their commitment in ensuring the peace and safety of our communities, a duty of which they are sworn to uphold. Our safety and that of our families and the security of our homes, our businesses and, indeed, our democracy are all reliant on the enforcement of our laws—a task which primarily falls to our police.
This Police Remembrance Day, as we fight off the global coronavirus pandemic, I would like to take the opportunity to also recognise the multi-faceted role undertaken by our police officers who have been serving on the front line across the nation. They continue to put their lives at risk to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our communities during these most challenging times.
This year's service will see the total number of names of police officers listed on the National Police Memorial wall regrettably rise again. This year we recognise the tragic loss of four members of the Victorian police force, namely Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor, Senior Constable Kevin King, Constable Glen Humphris and Constable Joshua Prestney. These four members of the Victoria Police tragically lost their lives in a multi-vehicle collision on Melbourne's Eastern Freeway when a truck ploughed into them as they were responding to a speeding incident on that highway. This incident clearly saddened Victoria and, indeed, the nation, with this being the single biggest loss of police life in Victoria's history.
I'd also like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to our police friends in New Zealand and the family of Constable Matthew Dennis Hunt of the New Zealand Police, who tragically lost his life in the line of duty earlier this year. It was a devastating incident in which I understand another police officer was also shot and a member of the public was injured as part of a routine police stop. The death of these police officers highlights the inherent danger involved in police work—not knowing what they are likely to face every time they commit to go on duty.
National Police Remembrance Day is also a time for us to reflect on the loved ones who have been left behind, the families and friends whose lives have forever been affected. While we mourn with them, we thank and honour all police families, whose unconditional support allows these fine men and women to serve our community. We owe it—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): I'm terribly sorry. We have now become inquorate. Government members have all left the room, leaving us inquorate. I'll have to suspend sitting until we can resume with a quorum.
Sitting suspended from 16:50 to 17:05
Mr HAYES: As I was saying, we owe it to the fallen to look after their families, which by the way is the work of Police Legacy, which is particularly important and deserving of our support. As a matter of fact, later this month there will be the police Wall to Wall Ride for Remembrance. It has been largely curtailed this year because of the pandemic. It is an opportunity for all police forces to come together with members to raise money for Police Legacy to look after the families of the fallen. To the four members of the Victorian police force who tragically lost their lives, to all police officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice and to all our past and current members of the police force, we honour you and we profoundly thank you for your service.
Ms Stanley: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (17:06): I thank the member for Fowler for moving this important motion today. I acknowledge as we pause for National Police Remembrance Day the enormous contribution made by so many Australian men and women, who are at the forefront of our thoughts every day as they go about their duties. I am humbled to speak on behalf of the people of Kooyong in this place, acknowledging the crucial role that police officers play across our nation, their risk and their sacrifice in the performance of their duties.
On the evening of 22 April this year, there was a devastating road incident that shocked Australians and plunged our nation into mourning. Leading senior constable Lynette Taylor, senior constable Kevin King, constable Joshua Prestney and constable Glen Humphris were killed in the line of duty in a horrific road incident on the Eastern Freeway in Kew. Victoria Police's leading senior constable Shane Hafner encapsulated the collective grief of the policing community nationwide when he wrote:
We leave our families to protect your home and you,
And we do it because we care about what we do.
We do it to serve you and protect you as best as we can,
We do it even knowing what risks are at hand.
It takes very special people to put on the blue uniform each day and go to work not knowing what lies ahead. For those police officers and their families, we say a big thanks. We obviously mourn with the families of those who have been lost.
In the COVID environment, which was silhouetting the April tragedy, our nation has not been able to gather to commemorate the sacrifice of these four heroes as we normally would, but in the days, weeks and months ahead we have been moved by our community's solidarity with Victoria Police and with the families of the fallen. While due to restrictions we have painfully not been able to yet farewell Lynette, Kevin, Joshua and Glen with the full honours they deserve, we remember the memorials that shone throughout the nation as hues of blue adorned Victorian parliament, Flinders Street station and the Arts Centre's spire, just as blue ribbons were placed on street signs and suburban fences. I personally was deeply moved by the metres-deep wall of flowers placed at Boroondara Police Station in Kew, the Collingwood Magpies memorabilia adorning the fences of Joshua Prestney's old school Xavier College and the deeply moving scenes of guards of honour at every road junction which saluted constable Glen Humphris on his last journey home to New South Wales.
The work of benevolent organisations like the Victoria Police Legacy and its counterparts play a vital role in supporting the grieving families of fallen heroes. In the moments after such unspeakable tragedies, legacy organisations stand resolutely in support of their families and loved ones, providing practical care at difficult times. This year, more than ever, National Police Remembrance Day and Blue Ribbon Day is a chance for our nation to express our gratitude to those who protect and serve our community and ensure that those who have fallen are never forgotten.
2020 has been a difficult year for Victoria Police in my home state. The loss of Lynette, Kevin, Joshua and Glen in April and the tireless frontline efforts in response to devastating bushfires and the fight against coronavirus have each posed unique challenges for police members. Just as Joshua Prestney's father, Andrew Prestney, urged us all with such grace to not focus on the negativity that surrounds the tragic loss of life, we should commit each day to honour our police heroes by acknowledging and thanking them for their daily courage and bravery. As Andrew said, 'We can thank our guardians in blue with a smile and a nod.'
I've been honoured to rise today to commemorate the sacrifice of Lynette, Joshua, Glen and Kevin on behalf of my community and to remember all police officers who have died in the line of duty. May they rest in peace. While we cannot imagine their grief, may the families of our fallen police draw comfort in our nation's respect. We will remember them. Hasten the dawn.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (17:11): It's my honour to rise to support the motion moved by the member for Fowler and to acknowledge National Police Remembrance Day on 29 September this year. I also note the work of Mr Hayes and many others in the 20-year campaign to construct the national memorial and to instigate the observance of a national remembrance day. The memorial was unveiled in Canberra on 29 September 2006 in Kings Park on the northern shores of Lake Burley Griffin. There are over 700 officers currently commemorated at the national memorial, beginning with Constable John Luca, who was killed in the line of duty in 1803.
Unfortunately, four Victorian officers have joined that list of police officers killed in the line of duty. Those officers—Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor, Senior Constable Kevin King, Constable Glen Humphris and Constable Joshua Prestney—were killed in a multivehicle collision on Melbourne's Eastern Freeway whilst performing their duties in April this year. It was an incident that rocked the nation. I send my sincere condolences to the families, friends and work mates of these officers. I note that the member for Kooyong is present here and that his community was also affected. Those Victorian officers joined Constable Timothy Proctor, from the Liverpool area command, who lost his life in a car accident last year. I know that the Liverpool command still feel that loss.
National Police Remembrance Day acknowledges the crucial role that police officers play across Australia. Whether it's in our local communities at social events or assisting with national disasters or global pandemics, the police force are here to serve. 29 September is one of the most significant days in the national police calendar. As a nation we pause to remember the police officers who lost their lives while fulfilling their duty to protect the community. This day is an opportunity to honour the courage and commitment of all police members. Undoubtedly this year's commemorations will be very different because of the pandemic, but I know they will be no less heartfelt and solemn.
The trust the community places in our police should never be underestimated. The risks faced by police officers every day in the variety of roles and responsibilities they take on are recognised and deeply respected by the community. Police officers are often called upon when people are facing some of the most distressing times in their lives. Situations such as this require calm, clear and focused voices. Police officers around the country provide the confidence and leadership that is required to support and care for people in need. Many officers have had to face these circumstances on several occasions and conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism.
The logistics support during this pandemic delivered by the New South Wales Police Force, not only those in command but the officers on the ground, was essential to ensure the safety of our community. Throughout the changing landscape over the last 12 months, officers did not get complacent. They continued to keep the communities safe. I acknowledge and thank Liverpool city area commander Superintendent Adam Whyte for the great work he and his officers have performed in the electorate over the last 12 months. He and his command continue to provide a high level of professionalism and they have been providing resource and logistics support during the pandemic. Whether assisting with hotel quarantine, border surveillance or continuing to investigate crime and make arrests, they have been making our community proud.
On a personal note, I thank Commander Whyte for always being available to me with advice and support, which has been indispensable. Not only is he great to chat to, he provided crucial guidance and direction during the pandemic's early days when their health orders were changing so rapidly. This made it much easier to properly coordinate my office so I could correctly and effectively provide advice for questions raised by constituents. The way in which officers approach their duty day in, day out should be an example to all of us. There's no such thing as a normal day at the office for a police officer. Their important role and their willingness to take on whatever comes makes them some of the finest members of their community.
I'm extremely proud of the police, particularly in my community of Werriwa, and I thank all officers, all over Australia, for their service to our community. I pay tribute to the families and friends of the officers who've been killed in the line of duty. I commend the valuable work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones when police officers have fallen. I support the nation's police officers. I honour their courage, commitment and dedication to ensuring the peace and safety of our communities.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 17:16 to 17:26
National Police Remembrance Day
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (16:11): I rise to speak about National Police Remembrance Day. As we approach National Police Remembrance Day, on 27 September, it is important that we acknowledge the crucial role that police officers serve in our communities and pay tribute to those officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the course of their duty.
It was only recently that four members of the Victorian Police Force tragically lost their lives in a multiple vehicle collision on Melbourne's Eastern Freeway. I would like to extend my condolences to the families and friends of Leading Senior Constable Lynette Rosemary Taylor, Senior Constable Kevin Neil King, Constable Glen Andrew Humphris and Constable Joshua Andrew Prestney. We acknowledge the sacrifices they have made and all the police make to ensure our communities are a place of peace and safety.
I also want to take this opportunity to commend the valuable work of Police Legacy, who look after the loved ones of police officers who have fallen in their line of duty. Being a member of the police force comes with an incredible physical and psychological risk, and this can also be experienced by the love ones in their extended police family. I know this because, as a psychologist, I would see police officers who had been exposed to traumatic events, which, unfortunately, increases their risk to post-traumatic stress disorder. Police Legacy develop lasting relationships with families who have lost loved ones in the line of duty and ensures their needs are being met. This may mean covering the cost of their children's education, providing referrals to bereavement counselling and other social services, or introducing them to other Police Legacy families who have also gone through the same grief.
I would like to take this opportunity to affirm our nation's support for our police officers. I want to especially thank the commander of Burwood Police Area Command, Detective Superintendent Paul Delaney, and the commander of Auburn police Area Command, Acting Superintendent Peter Glynn. I want to thank them for taking the time to meet with me recently and to explain the challenges that police in my area have faced, especially in the recent months during the coronavirus pandemic. The scope of work they have had to take on due to the coronavirus, alongside their regular duties, is quite remarkable. They have been assisting and overseeing social distancing restrictions, border restrictions and even management of New South Wales quarantine hotel operations. I thank our police officers, ADF personnel and first responders for the work they are doing in the community to help control the spread of coronavirus. It is yet another example of the many ways our police force steps up to make sure that our community is safe. I speak on behalf of those in Reid when I thank our police officers for their service and for their commitment to our communities, and I remember those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty.
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (17:30): I also rise today to speak in support of the motion by the member for Fowler. I'd like to acknowledge the member for his ongoing dedication to this important day of police remembrance and his continued advocacy in all areas of policing. I also acknowledge the contribution of all other members here today. I note the motion reaffirms our support for the nation's police officers and honours their courage, commitment and dedication in ensuring the peace and safety of our communities. Of course, this is even more so the case now with the added duties our police are undertaking due to COVID-19 health restrictions across the nation. I'd like to acknowledge the additional challenges that those police are facing and commend them for all they are doing to keep us and our communities safe.
I was very proud to previously serve as a general duties police officer in the Queensland Police Service. I'd like to thank all police right across the nation for the work they do. Of course, today I make special mention of the police back home in my electorate of Richmond, on the New South Wales North Coast, who serve and protect our community with such commitment. I'd like to thank and acknowledge the officers serving in the commands on the New South Wales North Coast, also specifically for their ongoing efforts during the COVID-19 crisis. I know firsthand the outstanding work that they are doing in these incredibly challenging times. Each police officer plays a vital role towards ensuring our local communities are safe. I acknowledge the great risk and personal sacrifice that comes with such duty.
This year marks the 31st anniversary of Police Remembrance Day. It's a time when we pause to honour the lives and memories the police who've had their lives tragically cut short in their work protecting us. It is a very solemn and important day for police officers, their loved ones and the wider police family. It's also an important day for our community to reflect on the role of our police as they serve, protect and uphold the laws. In particular, we pay tribute to the men and women in the police service who've made the ultimate sacrifice. Together, we must ensure their legacies are preserved. This year, we specifically pay tribute to Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor, Constable Glen Humphris, Senior Constable Kevin King and Constable Joshua Prestney, all of whom tragically lost their lives in a multiple vehicle collision on Melbourne's Eastern Freeway on 22 April this year. I wish to extend my deepest sympathies to their family, friends and colleagues. It's in these difficult times that wider support is incredibly essential.
On that note, I wish to pay tribute to the very enduring work of Police Legacy. Police Legacy is a remarkable organisation providing services to police legatees and members of the wider police family. In New South Wales, Police Legacy provides support services and advocacy to around 1,000 police legatees, and, for more than 30 years, NSW Police Legacy has been providing both financial assistance and, indeed, support for our police families. Also, as a former general duties police officer myself, I've seen firsthand some of the situations and complexities that police officers face, day-in and day-out, whilst serving their communities in the execution of their duties. It's important to acknowledge that, again, these individuals are out there working hard for us and they sometimes have to face difficult, confronting and, indeed, very dangerous situations. It's during these times that police are sometimes faced with fatal incidents and horrific tragedies. It's often the same police who then have to deliver very heartbreaking news to the families that a loved one has died. So I'd like to commend the police for their empathy, strength and professionalism in performing such work. I also would like to acknowledge the post-traumatic stress disorders that some officers may carry as a direct result of their police experience.
Recognising and responding to the issues, pressures and challenges that our police face is, indeed, essential and we must raise the public's awareness of the realities that police officers face in their duties. In fact, there are many specific challenges in policing in regional areas as well, like mine on the New South Wales North Coast. I have commented many times on this and continue to call for more staff and associated resources for regional communities like mine on the Far North Coast of New South Wales. I encourage locals in my area and across the country to take a moment to think about the role that police officers play within our community, in our area and, indeed, right throughout the country. Particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, we need to think about the extra workload that police have and work with them. It is a very challenging time and they are doing a remarkable job as we move through this pandemic. I congratulate them on the work they're doing and commend them for their work, and I ask the community to work with them. I would like to say to the police in my local area and indeed throughout the nation: thank you for service. National Police Remembrance Day is a very important occasion. It's an occasion for us all to come together and recognise our police services, and I certainly encourage everyone in the community to do that on National Police Remembrance Day.
National Police Remembrance Day
Dr HAINES (Indi) (17:35): Last year, to mark Police Remembrance Day, I spoke at a ceremony held by Benalla Police Service Area at the St Peter's World War I memorial church in Kinglake. It was a privilege to speak beside Reverend Eden Nicholls, police chaplain from Benalla police, and Sergeant Matthew Wheeler, from the Kinglake police. The church was rebuilt after the 2009 fires, and the backdrop to the altar was a wall of glass, giving view to the most magnificent mountain and valley scenery. No stained glass could replicate the beauty, nor could it act as a starker reminder of the force of nature that had swept upon that town.
This year, like so many things, Police Remembrance Day will be marked differently. There will likely be no public gatherings in towns across Victoria, only quiet moments of reflection as we contemplate and mark our gratitude for the service and for the sacrifice of the people who keep our communities safe. And yet, sadly, this year we have much to remember. Fresh in our minds in Victoria is the immense tragedy of the incident on the Eastern Freeway on 22 April, where four officers died in the course of undertaking their duty. The Eastern Freeway tragedy took the lives of Senior Constable Kevin King, Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor, Constable Joshua Prestney and Constable Glen Humphris. I'd like to add my voice and the voice of the people of Indi to those before me in expressing my sadness and condolences to their families, colleagues and friends.
Motor vehicle incidents have claimed the lives of Indi police officers too, including Senior Constable Rennie Page in 2005 and Senior Constable Anne Brimblecombe in 2006. To their families, friends, colleagues and the communities that they protected: we remember. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank some of the wonderful police officers in Indi, who do so much to keep our community safe. Country policing is hard business. Our men and women in blue are often called to car crashes, scenes of domestic violence and other traumas. They're there for us in bushfires and in floods. And in a small community, when tragedy strikes, there's a fair chance that the country police officer knows the people involved.
There are people like Bruce Colval from Alexandra, who retired on 1 July, after a 43-year career as a police officer. Bruce joined the force at 17 and spent 30 years working in the Alexandra, Eildon, Marysville, Taggerty and Yarck areas. When he retired, Bruce told the The Alexandra Standard that a good police officer shows empathy, listens and treats everyone fairly and evenly. According to his colleagues, these are the values that Bruce demonstrated throughout his long career.
And there's Laurie Bould, a former senior sergeant of Chiltern. He arrived in the town in 1975 and raised his four kids with his wife, Anne, who nursed at the bush nursing hospital. When Laurie retired a few years ago, he kept serving his community. He got stuck right in to leading an array of community groups, including the community emergency response team, the cemetery trust and the Chiltern fishing club. Laurie's a talented pianist and can be regularly found smashing out the tunes with flute player Mary-Anne O'Connor in a duo that Laurie aptly named The Bold and the Beautiful.
When young, William Callaghan got lost on Mount Disappointment, near Mansfield, for two freezing nights in June, it was the police who stepped up and led the search to find him. When a V/Line passenger train crashed into a derailed freight train at Barnawartha in January, it was the police who arrived on the scene to manage the crisis and keep the freeway moving. And since the New South Wales Premier made the extraordinary decision to shut the border with Victoria as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, our police have been on the job, day and night, keeping the border operating as best they can under tough conditions.
We are safer because of the work you do. On this Police Remembrance Day, I pay tribute to all our serving and retired police officers and their families. I commemorate you, I honour you and I especially honour those whom we have lost. And I thank Police Legacy for the work that they do in supporting our police and their families.
Debate adjourned.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and a resumption of debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Renewable Energy: Hydrogen Industry
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) recognises that with research like that occurring at the CSIRO Advanced Research Facility in the electoral division of Ryan, Australia has the potential to be a world leader in hydrogen development, production and export which will create highly paid jobs and an industry potentially worth billions to the Australian economy;
(2) acknowledges that:
(a) Australia's availability of land, high quality renewable energy resources and fossil energy resources, as well as our well-established reputation for undertaking large-scale resource projects, position Australia well for becoming a key exporter in a future global hydrogen market;
(b) the combined direct and indirect benefits of establishing a hydrogen production and export industry in Australia under a medium demand scenario will deliver to the Australian economy $4.2 billion and over 7,100 jobs by 2040;
(c) greater use of hydrogen is one way that Australia can contribute to global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, if Australian produced hydrogen replaces traditional fossil fuel sources in end user nations; and
(d) the National Hydrogen Strategy is to be released by the end of 2019, providing the Government with an opportunity to signal its long term policy and commitment to this industry;
(3) welcomes the Government's significant investment of more than $140 million into hydrogen projects, partnering with industry to develop tangible solutions that are important for bringing down energy prices for Australian households and small businesses; and
(4) encourages the Government to utilise the opportunity of the release of the National Hydrogen Strategy to confirm its long term commitment to the development of our hydrogen capability in order to encourage private investment in the sector, create jobs, create export capability and reduce global carbon emissions.
Mr TIM WILSON ( Goldstein ) ( 17:40 ): We all know that we are in an energy transition for this country. Australia has set out ambitious goals to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. We face challenges around attracting investment in new energy to make sure that we can build the manufacturing base of our economy, which so heavily depends on affordable energy, and deliver reliability for the economy so that businesses can invest with confidence, so there can be stability in the grid, and when Australians need to flick the switch the light comes on. Over many years, and recently, we've had a significant transition already. Despite the claims of those on the opposition benches, we've had the biggest rollout of renewable energy this year of any year, and it continues to go on unabated.
Australia is leading the transition to a lower-carbon future, but we also recognise the challenges and the limits of different technologies. I say this as somebody who is so pro-technology—the future is going to be awesome if we embrace technology—but we also have to acknowledge its limits, what things can be done, what things can't be done and what we need to add into the mix. That sense of balance is at the core of our approach to energy in Australia. We understand that Australian households need affordable, reliable energy. We know they want to cut our greenhouse gas emissions because they want to steward a more sustainable environment for their kids and their grandkids. That's everything we are about, which is why we also acknowledge the importance of technologies like gas, fuels that play a critical part in manufacturing to be affordable and to guarantee supply against the intermittency of renewables, which play a critical part of providing for households and low-energy demands, small businesses and even larger businesses, increasingly, with firming power and the backup potential of batteries as well. We want a sustainable solution, so it's an important part of that.
One of the reasons gas is such an important part of it is not because it's an end in itself but because of what it prioritises and enables for the future of energy demand of the country.
Dr Freelander interjecting—
Mr TIM WILSON: This is the point the member for Macarthur simply doesn't understand. But the Chief Scientist does, and more the power to him. Alan Finkel does a fantastic job in leading the discussion around the power of hydrogen. Why does he like the potential of gas? Because gas so easily enables the transition to a hydrogen based economy. Think about the potential. We could use renewables to create hydrogen and export it to the world, the member for Macarthur. I was at the opening of the Kawasaki plant down in the Latrobe Valley, in Victoria, where we're looking at options to export hydrogen to countries like Japan.
The future of our export industries don't even need to be in fossil fuels. It'll be part of the discussion, but we can also see new opportunities and new horizons. That's because we're interested, this government, in building the Australian economy of the 21st century. Labor's caught in its ideological battles of the old 20th century, capital versus labour, defending the status quo, without understanding the power of leadership. Under this minister and under this Prime Minister, we're looking at how we build the Australian economy of the 21st century and transition from the base load of energy that we've used so much, from brown and black coal, towards gas, because what it will enable is a hydrogen future.
Make no mistake, this is incredibly exciting, the potential of hydrogen to provide transportable and base load energy for the Australian economy at an affordable price and to be exportable, while still using the same technology and infrastructure for generation that can be used for gas that we can build today. We're not just looking at what we need to do to build the future of the economy of Australia today, we're looking at how to futureproof Australia today.
I know that's a big problem for the opposition, who like to wax lyrical about these problems thinking only they are the solution—because this is the problem with the Labor Party. The Labor Party always sees themselves as a solution to the problem—not what we can do together through the power of initiative and ingenuity of the Australian people. What it will help us do is reach our road map, not just for that energy reliability and not just for that energy security but, of course, to reduce the price of energy and to meet our emissions targets.
Australian hydrogen energy could generate more than 8,000 jobs—a critical part of the discussion in the post-COVID recovery—many, critically, in regional Australia, where there is so much opportunity to build up regional centres to be part of the future of the economy of the country and contribute $11 billion in GDP by 2050. It's time to get on board, Labor. It's time to get on board with the future development of the Australian economy. It's time to get on board with building Australia's future.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (17:45): I rise today to speak on the motion brought forward by the member for Ryan. I welcome the ability and the opportunity to discuss the importance of having a well-invested and supported hydrogen industry. I'm not sure what the last speech was about, whether it was about hydrogen gas, methane gas or some other form of gas, but we've heard time and time again during this pandemic that Australia needs to invest in manufacturing, that we need to develop new employment opportunities and that our nation requires a long-term economic and energy plan. To these, I state that hydrogen—that is, clean hydrogen—is the answer.
Labor has made this point for some time and embraces hydrogen as a reliable and efficient energy source, so much so that we've had an ambitious hydrogen policy during the last election and the election before, and this is slowly influencing those on the other side. We knew then, as the government is now starting to know, that Australia can be—and should be—a world leader in hydrogen technology, and we have the benefit of providing an industry with economic and job prosperity whilst providing a cleaner energy resource.
Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, sees a hydrogen export industry that in 10 years time could be worth up to $2 billion. I concur with the member for Ryan that it is welcome that the government is investing in hydrogen projects, albeit I believe this could have been done much sooner and at a much higher level and would have resulted in more opportunities for Australian households and businesses to benefit from the transition to a clean energy source.
A report prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers describes the emerging hydrogen industry as a bright one and notes that the private sector will require signals of confidence from government that this is a long-term industry worth investing in. This is important as the shift to clean hydrogen energy will not be an organic one that will happen just by and of itself. It will not go ahead without support and encouragement from government, from industry and from the Public Service.
During a time when it appears that energy policy is a partisan and fractured issue within states and, indeed, within the federal parliament, it is welcoming to note that New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and Tasmania have all launched programs and initiatives that show confidence in clean hydrogen energy as a source of energy for the future. Of note is the plan to roll out hydrogen fuelled bus services in many states.
I don't know about other members, but I am thoroughly sick of the partisan nature of energy policy in this country. It's time for the federal government to show leadership in this regard. The days of bringing lumps of coal into this parliament are gone. Coal seam gas and other forms of methane gas are fuels of the past, not of the future, and we need to look to the future and future technologies to guide us through this difficult time.
I welcome the initiatives shown by the states, and I personally believe that hydrogen has a very important role in our automotive and transport industries. Specifically, fuel cell electric vehicles will be a terrific alternative to the current internal combustion engines powering most vehicles on our roads today and an alternative to electric vehicles. In January, Deloitte released findings that found within 10 years FCVs will be cheaper to run than internal combustion engines and battery electric vehicles. They will be good for vehicles that are required to haul heavy loads, and they will be very feasible for things like buses, for the transport industry, and for heavy cartage.
Whilst we discussed the economic feasibility of these technologies in Australia and their future implementation here, around the world FCVs are not a thing of the future but, rather, a part of the everyday. There are over 2,000 FCVs in China at this time, and. South Korea is developing more, as is the European Union, to bring together countries across the EU to boost the market uptake of hydrogen technologies and hydrogen fuelled vehicles. I welcome the work of the ACT government, Hyundai and other stakeholders, who are on track to open the first public hydrogen refuelling station later this year. I also welcome reports that hydrogen cars will be built not far from my electorate of Macarthur at Port Kembla, in the electorate of Cunningham, and should be on our roads within two years.
I firmly believe that these investments in hydrogen technology and hydrogen fuelled transportation are not to be overlooked and are something that we'll rely on in the future. As we rebuild and restructure our economy during these troubling times, it's time for a bipartisan energy policy.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (17:51): Green hydrogen offers great hope, not just for Australia but for the world, when it comes to the task of the transformation of our energy network—the shift from fossil fuel to renewables.
Sitting suspended from 17:51 to 17:56
Mr RAMSEY: As I was saying, the important thing about transition is that the price of the renewable becomes lower than the fossil fuel that is available now. While we in the developed world can put restrictions on ourselves—we can raise the price of fossil fuel; we can wear a hair shirt, if you like—it won't make a significant difference to the fossil fuels that are consumed in the rest of the world. The path to sustainability, the path to renewable energy, is to make the renewable energy and make sure that it is cost-competitive and undercuts fossil fuel. Then, of course, the world will beat a path to your door.
Hydrogen offers great hope. The National Hydrogen Strategy said in only November last year that the magic figure for production and transportation to the point of usage is around $12 to $14 a kilogram for hydrogen produced to compete with distillate and petrol. To replace gas heating, you would have to produce hydrogen for around $1.20 a kilogram, so that's a little way away yet. We've got quite a bit to go.
However, it's worth contemplating that South Australia leads the renewable energy charge across Australia. We have 2,300 megawatts of installed capacity of wind and large solar in South Australia. Around 1,700 of that, I might add, is in the electorate of Grey. There is 1,080 megawatts of rooftop solar. When that's all up and operating, that's more than enough to run South Australia. In fact, the grid has become quite unstable, to the point where AEMO is now restricting large wind generators to 1,300 megawatts at any particular time because, if they allow for more than that to be generated and fed into the grid, it puts pressure on the baseload generators that are underwriting the system, that hold it all together.
The great possibility here is for the transition fuels for storage. In South Australia, we have four different options, I think. One is the interconnector proposed by the South Australian government, which will go directly through to New South Wales and, by dint of that, will actually connect with Snowy Hydro 2.0. We are also providing money to build up the business cases for two or three local pumped hydro projects, which will give anything up to eight or nine hours electricity at full tilt.
There has been a big investment and expansion in batteries. I'm the first to sing the praises of batteries inasmuch as they provide a very special role in balancing both frequency and voltage. They are instant responders, if you like. There is more investment going into batteries, but as far as I can tell, based on everyone I speak to in the industry, it's widely accepted that the technology in batteries is nowhere near providing the deep storage capacity that we need, that can back up a system that is not generating for hours or one day or two days at a time because the wind's not blowing.
At this stage the most important transition energy source is gas, and we should be making sure that we use the gas that we have been provided with in Australia. But there is a space for hydrogen in there, and hopefully, in the first instance, it will come for firming up operations. But if we can get the price cheap enough, and experience shows the more you invest in an area the more likely you are to get there, then perhaps we can get it down to the stage where it can provide baseload electricity on a repeatable basis. We must remember though, if we want to produce 50,000 tonnes of hydrogen a year from a renewable, intermittent energy source, we might have to build a plant that has 100,000 tonnes a year capacity. So somewhere along the line you pay the price: you build for overcapacity to compensate for the intermittency of the electricity generation at the first point. I'm sure I'll get to add to this at another time, because it's a subject I feel quite passionately about.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (18:01): Clean hydrogen has a critical role to play as we make the global shift towards a low carbon economy. If we can produce hydrogen from renewable energy, Australia could forge a multi-billion dollar green industry with tens of thousands of new, well-paid jobs. While this has long been an aspiration, the economics are changing rapidly, as is the potential for this technology to become a viable commercial reality. And the market potential is massive, with the global market expected to top A$200 billion by 2024.
Given our natural advantages, Australia has the potential to be a hydrocarbon powerhouse. My home city of Newcastle in particular the has energy smarts, the industrial experience and the infrastructure needed to be a key player, but first the policy settings need to be right. After seven years and 19 energy policy attempts, the Morrison government still have no national energy policy and they continue to push an anti-renewables agenda, refusing to capitalise on the huge benefits that clean energy can bring to Australian households and businesses. It's time for the Morrison government to reject, once and for all, climate change denialism and end its war on science. We need an energy policy that incentivises renewable energy investment, putting green carbon front and centre.
Federal Labor have long recognised the incredible potential for carbon, for the environment, for jobs, for our international competitiveness. We went to the 2019 election with a strong $1.1 billion national hydrogen plan, which would have been one of the largest industry development packages in the history of this country. We also committed to delivering 50 per cent of energy from renewable sources and doubling the budget of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to invest in these game-changing projects. Regretfully, we weren't able to form government, but that doesn't make the need to support a green hydrogen industry any less urgent.
Research by ACIL Allen projected that Australian hydrogen exports could be worth $10 billion in 20 years, mainly in regional areas. As I mentioned earlier, my home city of Newcastle is uniquely placed to benefit as one of the nation's premier energy research hubs. With a rich history steeped in energy production, Newcastle has all of the ingredients to become a powerhouse of hydrogen research, development, production and export. We have energy smarts in abundance through the world-leading Newcastle Institute for Energy and Resources and the flagship CSIRO Energy Centre. We have a strong industrial skills base with more than a century of experience and we have a fabulous deepwater port.
Like most Novocastrians, I have nothing but respect for the hard and often dangerous work of coalminers in the region. These men and women are part of our families and our communities. They've helped shape our past and present and play a key role in driving our region's prosperity. But coal, like oil and gas, is a finite resource that produces significant greenhouse gas emissions. If we are to combat climate change, we know we must transition to a low-emissions, low-carbon economy. Hydrogen, along with battery storage, will be key to Australia's energy future.
Newcastle and the Hunter have a lot at stake in any such transition, which is why we should be leading these discussions, ensuring no-one is left behind as we take full advantage of the opportunities ahead. As Ross Garnaut showed in his book Superpower: Australia's low-carbon opportunity we now have a golden window to capitalise on our abundant natural resources and our exceptional research capabilities to become a global energy superpower—although, on this second point, I'd like to note CSIRO and science itself have suffered gravely at the hands of this Liberal government, and our energy scientists aren't immune. Indeed, only a few months ago we learned that 40 energy jobs are set to go from the CSIRO, including up to nine from the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle. If we are to fulfil the incredible promise of clean hydrogen, the government must call time on their reckless climate wars, stop attacking scientists and grasp this opportunity with both hands. Right now, Australia needs a genuine national energy policy that will drive investment and growth in the clean energies of the future.
Sitting suspended from 18 : 06 to 18 : 11
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (18:11): The Morrison government is investing in the energy opportunities presented by hydrogen. In November last year our government released a landmark strategy that will guide the development of our nation's growing hydrogen industry. The National Hydrogen Strategy was developed in consultation with the states and territories. It lays out a path to solving the problems of today and creating the jobs of tomorrow by investing in new technologies. Consistent with our focus on new technologies to reduce emissions and lower energy costs, hydrogen will become a key pillar in our ongoing work to secure better environmental outcomes without sending the nation broke.
Our approach could not be more different to that of those opposite, whose only solutions are to impose billions of dollars of taxes on Australian businesses and our communities. This makes absolutely no sense. By comparison, our plan for the hydrogen industry makes a lot of sense. It makes sense for Australia. We have abundant energy resources, extensive carbon storage sites, and a strong track record of and capability for energy exports.
Hydrogen has substantial untapped potential. We're working to release that potential through the CEFC's new 300 million Advancing Hydrogen Fund and ARENA's $70 million funding round for electrolyser projects. The latter fund in particular has received strong interest, with over 36 expressions of interest submitted, showing that industry is ready and able to co-invest to help grow our hydrogen industry. As we know, supporting pilots, trials and demonstrations is important to further research and development and to realise the extensive applications hydrogen has to offer.
In addition to this targeted funding, we have laid good foundations for hydrogen's safe use across Australia, by working with the states and territories to review hydrogen safety regulations for government and industry. In April this year Australia also became a member of the US Center for Hydrogen Safety and, alongside industry, we are developing a certification scheme. This scheme will adhere to agreed international standards and allow us to trace and certify hydrogen production, guaranteeing transparency for consumers and certainty for government in assessing emissions. We are also supporting the integration of hydrogen in Australia's gas networks, reviewing national gas laws and other energy laws and options for setting and allowing updates to the upper limits on the volume of hydrogen-natural gas blends permitted in our networks. This brings me to a very exciting hydrogen project based at the Tonsley Innovation District, which is in my electorate of Boothby.
Tonsley is the home of innovation in South Australia. Their involvement in hydrogen production and blending is no exception to this. Hydrogen Park South Australia is being built at Tonsley by Australian Gas Infrastructure Group and will feature Australia's largest electrolyser. The 1.25 megawatt proton exchange membrane electrolyser will remove carbon from the natural gas supply using renewable energy, creating zero carbon hydrogen gas before that gas is blended back into the natural gas network for an efficient and clean burn. It is underpinned by another visionary Liberal government, with a $4.9 million grant from the Marshall Liberal government, alongside AGIG's $6.5 million dollar investment.
The project will supply over 700 homes in the adjacent suburb of Mitchell Park with up to a five per cent blend of hydrogen. The gas network supplying these homes has been sectioned off to allow for better measurement of the project's outcomes and goods consultation and communication with those residents who will be using this clean and blended gas. It will demonstrate the feasibility of blending hydrogen across the broader South Australian gas network and help inform government planning on the transition to a low-carbon gas distribution network that heavily features a hydrogen blend. Crucially, there will be no extra cost to customers who are receiving this gas as part of the project.
To borrow words from AGIG's chief executive Mr Ben Wilson, the project will deliver renewable hydrogen made from water, sunshine and wind and paves the way for commercial deployment of a hydrogen economy. Additionally, having the largest electrolyser in Australia has its benefits. Production at Hydrogen Park will be around 480 kilograms per day, providing a surplus that could also benefit local industry in South Australia where we currently import the product from Victoria.
It is such an exciting time for this industry which is supported by the Morrison and Marshall Liberal governments. I wish to commend all those who are leading the way for hydrogen in Australia and particularly the work of Ben Wilson and the Australian Gas Infrastructure Group for their ground-breaking work and their project in my electorate of Boothby.
Sitting suspended from 18:17 to 18:21
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (18:21): I'm glad to make a contribution tonight to the debate on this motion. I thank the member for Ryan for bringing it forward. It's refreshing to see a member of the government from Queensland speak about the export and job-creation potential of new energy technologies, particularly those that support the rapid shift that we need towards renewable energy and related forms of zero-emission fuel. That's in contrast, of course, to his colleague, Senator Canavan, from the other place, who in January last year described Labor's promotion of an Australian hydrogen industry as snake oil and said that any large-scale production and export of hydrogen was probably decades away. Meanwhile, of course, countries like Japan, Germany and South Korea are busily forging down the hydrogen path.
In Australia, we have some of the best renewable energy conditions on the planet and we should be a top-of-the-tree, state-of-the-art player when it comes to green hydrogen, but, needless to say, that's difficult when you have a government that underrates and undermines renewable energy at every turn, a government in denial about climate change, a government that has sought to weaken or dismantle features of Labor's successful work in this space, like the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. The government has belatedly released its hydrogen strategy, but, let's not forget, that comes after six years of doing very little—so little, in fact, that we still don't have a national energy policy. That means we don't have the clarity and certainty of a national framework to guide energy investment and emission reduction, and that means we have higher prices and falling investment. What else don't we have? We don't have an updated Defence estate strategy, which should ensure that Defence planning and procurement make a contribution to new energy innovation, as happens in the United States. We also don't have the final report of the review into Australia's liquid fuel security, when making rapid progress towards electric and hydrogen vehicles would alleviate our terrible over-reliance on liquid fuels. The review's interim report that was issued in May last year said:
Australia may be left behind as the world moves away from oil-based fuels to other forms of transport energy such as electricity and hydrogen.
The world is transitioning to other transport energy sources faster than Australia. To maintain reliable energy supply, particularly for transport, Australia needs to keep pace with global trends, otherwise we risk being left behind with aging infrastructure and potentially more limited supply of oil. Take-up of other sources of transport energy in Australia has been slower than in countries like New Zealand, Norway, Japan and China. In Australia, the market share of electric vehicles is less than one-seventh of the market share in the United States and Canada.
Hydrogen is significant, precisely because it offers a means of renewable energy storage that has particular value as a zero-emission transport fuel. That's why Japan is working so hard to develop passenger vehicles that run on hydrogen, Norway is developing hydrogen ferries and Australian resources companies are making the shift as well. For example, Fortescue in my state has kicked off a first-of-its-kind project that will deploy 10 full sized hydrogen coaches at Christmas Creek to replace the existing fleet of diesel coaches by mid-2021. This will involve installing a hydrogen fuelling station that will be sustained by FMG's 60-megawatt Chichester solar project and is supported with a grant from the WA government's Renewable Hydrogen Fund. Taken together, these measures will reduce carbon emissions by 40 per cent and displace 100 million litres of diesel each year. While we so often hear the lazy assertion that Australia's export oriented industries, including in mining and resources, are dependent on conventional energy, the reality is these companies are moving to adopt renewable energy and storage technology as the foundation of their operations at a rapid rate. Why is that? It's because they know the approach will guarantee them cheap energy that they control while making a contribution to reducing emissions.
Unlike the government, the Business Council of Australia supports the target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, as does every state in Australia. Both BHP and Rio Tinto have committed to achieving net zero within their own operations by 2050. It is this government, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison-dot-dot-dot government that is the outlier on this issue. I understand and endorse the member for Ryan's enthusiasm for the CSIRO's work on hydrogen in his electorate. It's a shame the government has cut funding to the CSIRO. It is without question that Australia should be a leading exponent of the shift to hydrogen produced by renewable energy, but we have fallen behind the international pack through inaction and through policy neglect. State and local governments are forging ahead. Companies are forging ahead. It's the Morrison government that is letting the side down.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): Given there are no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Women's Economic Security
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted women's economic security, and that:
(i) in April over half a million Australians lost their jobs, of which 55 per cent were women;
(ii) women's underemployment ratio now sits at an unprecedented 16 per cent, compared to 14 per cent for men; and
(iii) modelling has estimated that more than 200,000 women casual workers in the accommodation, food services, and retail trade sectors alone will miss out on the JobKeeper wage subsidy;
(b) women typically retire with half the superannuation balance as men and if they choose to withdraw funds, women will suffer a significantly greater impact on their retirement income than men;
(c) Australian women have been on the frontline of the COVID-19 crisis in Australia in underpaid and undervalued roles—women account for:
(i) 87 per cent of registered nurses and midwives;
(ii) 87 per cent of aged care workers; and
(iii) 96 per cent of early childhood educators; and
(d) as a result of COVID-19, mothers are spending an extra hour each day on unpaid housework and four extra hours on childcare; and
(2) calls on the Government to recognise that women have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 crisis and deliver a plan to reduce gender inequality.
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (18:27): As the first woman to represent the electorate of Dunkley, named after the formidable Louisa Dunkley, a campaigner and advocate for equal pay, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on women's equality in the workforce. We know that in Australia the gender pay gap is at a stubborn 14 per cent. Why does such a pay gap exist? It's a combination of a number of factors. One is gender patterns in industries of employment. We know that even in female dominated organisations and industries women earn about $15,000 a year less than their male colleagues. The second element is the concentration of men in senior roles. Men absolutely dominate senior roles. Female CEOs are only 37.6 per cent of all CEOs in female dominated industries, and in male dominated industries it's a paltry 6.3 per cent of CEOs who are female. We also know the third factor in the gender pay gap is a persistence of biases and barriers to women's career progression. For example, we know that women over 55 are often seen as losing their value in the workplace. Men who are about 55 and over have the greatest chance of becoming a CEO. Women who are over 55 have the same chance of becoming a CEO as a 24-year-old male.
Dr Leonora Risse from RMIT and the Harvard Kennedy School has written a terrific article in the BroadAgenda setting out some of the issues for the gender pay gap because of the COVID pandemic. She has argued that the disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women means that we need to have a dashboard of multiple indicators to give us a full picture of the widening gaps between men's and women's workforce outcomes. In addition to the gender pay gap, we should look at the employment gap. As a result of the pandemic, there are 715,000 fewer jobs for women than men. We should look at the gap in the number of hours worked. Three months into the pandemic, 9.4 per cent of employed women were working zero hours. We should also look at the unemployment rate gap. It is still rising for women—it's gone beyond that of men—and is at 7½ per cent.
Dr Risse has also argued that we should look at the workforce participation gap. In May it had plunged for women to below 58 per cent, the lowest since 2007. In the blink of an eye, we've gone backwards 13 years. We should look at the caring and the cleaning gap. Women before the pandemic did more unpaid work in the household than men. It's now gone from 3½ hours more a week to five hours more a week. And we should look at the stress and safety gap. Women are more likely to be the frontline workers—the health, the aged-care, the teachers and the early education workers. What has this government—
Sitting suspended from 18 : 30 to 18 : 35
Ms MURPHY: What has this government focused on for stimulation to get us out of the COVID period and the recession? Predominantly, investment in infrastructure and construction. While, in themselves, they are good ways of stimulating the economy, they certainly aren't industries that are benefiting women in the workplace. About 12 per cent of the construction industry are women, and there is no plan to increase that from the federal government. I'd like to shout out to women in construction, who are pushing hard for support for women to take up apprenticeships and work in the construction industry.
What else has this government done? The first and so far the only industry to lose JobKeeper is child care—early education and child care—comprised predominantly of women workers, and the early access superannuation scheme hurts women. Women, on average, have 40 per cent less superannuation than men on retirement as it is, without having to draw down on their superannuation early to get through the pandemic. Research says that women are accessing their superannuation early just to pay for basics to get through this current time because they are so badly affected.
We know that it's going to be a hard road ahead to get gender equality in the workplace, but there are solutions. As Dr Risse said, we can disaggregate statistics by gender to make it clear. We can have more women involved in developing policy. Governments can lead by example and employ more women. We can have companies being more transparent in their plans to close their gender pay gap and have women in leadership. We can have paternity leave for men.
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (18:37): As a government, we will continue to create, prioritise and back pathways towards a safe, secure, fair and equal status for women in our economy and our society. 'It's our stance, and it's my commitment,' said the Prime Minister on International Women's Day earlier this year. I thank the member for moving this motion because it gives me an opportunity to talk about an issue that is very important to me and one I'm passionate about.
Before coronavirus, there were more women in work than ever before, and the gender pay gap had closed to its lowest level on record. There was still a long way to go, and, after coronavirus, there will be more work to do. All of us have felt the effects of the virus. Families have been kept apart, and many have fallen into economic hardship. We've been there every step of the way, to support Australians to get through this and to get out the other side of coronavirus.
We do know that women are disproportionately affected. I've seen firsthand what can be accomplished when we tackle these economic challenges head on. In 2014, I led a think-tank program at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, the 21st Century Global Women's Initiative, which explored important issues around women in work, and, under Australia's presidency and leadership, the G20 leaders, in 2014, committed to women's workforce participation as a critical factor in breaking down social and economic barriers.
Our target set Australia to work towards reducing the gender gap in workforce participation by 25 per cent by 2025. Lifting women's workforce participation includes additional financial security for women and their families through higher lifetime earnings. It is true that we often see the effects of women not accumulating enough superannuation. I have seen, firsthand, where women are living and experiencing homelessness in older age. It's something that we do need to address as a society. We need to ensure that women do have increased savings for retirement.
Economic independence is absolutely critical for women as they age, and it also helps women assist themselves and their families leave domestic violence relationships. It provides financial security. It breaks intergenerational welfare, improves personal confidence and, ultimately, ensures safety. We know that we can get back on track after coronavirus and get back to the strong trend of supporting women's economic security. There are already signs that economic security is improving. Women's employment increased in June and July, as the economy has begun to reopen. Our $158.3 million women's economic security plan, first introduced in 2018, will be refreshed again this year to better target support for where it's needed most.
This package is delivering support for women entering the workforce, with grants to increase entrepreneurship opportunities as well as investing in the Career Revive initiative to help businesses attract and retain women returning to work. This plan also invests in the Academy for Enterprising Girls, to support and encourage more young women into science, technology, engineering and maths, or STEM. In my electorate of Lindsay there's no end to the opportunity that's coming, in regard to STEM, with Western Sydney airport and the aerotropolis precinct. It will be a hub for emerging industries, including advanced manufacturing, defence industry, agriculture, research and medicine. I'm very pleased that Sydney Science Park will be in the electorate of Lindsay.
We're backing established industries to take hold of these opportunities and get behind entrepreneurs and start-ups to create and sustain jobs. For young women in STEM, these opportunities will be there for the taking. I really want to encourage that. The average, for women's workforce participation in Western Sydney, last year was 63 per cent. It is higher than both the Australian and New South Wales averages but, when we're looking at the industries of the future—particularly in Western Sydney—women still only make up 43 per cent of science and technology, 28 per cent of manufacturing and 17 per cent of agriculture. So it is critical that we encourage more women into these roles, which will be key to getting to our full workforce potential. That's why it's so important to equip young women with the skills they need to take the jobs of the future.
From the Girls in STEM program at Jamieson High School and the robotics classes at Samuel Terry Public School to the Western Sydney Women aviation program, Western Sydney has the opportunity to pave the way for young women in these emerging industries.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (18:42): It's no secret that many Australians are doing it tough. We continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic while experiencing the effects of the first recession in three decades, all while there are still so many attempting to pick up the pieces from the unparalleled bushfire season and long drought before that. Sadly, the evidence clearly shows it is women that have been—and are being—disproportionately impacted by these disasters.
When we went into shutdown, over half a million Australians joined the unemployment line. Fifty-five per cent of those were women. The occupations most hit—accommodation, food services and retail—are highly casualised and predominantly filled by female workers. We must also recognise that it is Australian women who've been on the front line of the COVID-19 crisis in underpaid and undervalued roles. Women account for 87 per cent of registered nurses and midwives, 87 per cent of aged-care workers and 96 per cent of early childhood educators.
Recently, I heard from early childhood educators in my electorate about the stress they are under—not only because of the health impacts of caring for little people and their families, at this time, but also because of the financial impact of the government's free child care, which effectively destroyed their businesses by halving their income. To add insult to injury, it was this essential service that was the first to have JobKeeper withdrawn. This is even though these businesses were—and still are—struggling with the downturn of enrolments, and the extra cost of cleaning and sanitising to keep themselves, their staff and their children safe and well.
The statistics of the pandemic are truly alarming. It is estimated that some 70 per cent of healthcare workers are infected with COVID-19 in Victoria's second wave, and they were infected at work. Nurses make up 40 per cent of those workers and a further 40 per cent are in caged care, both sectors with a predominantly female workforce. While the official unemployment rate sits at 7.5 per cent, the rate of underemployment for women sits at an alarming 16 per cent.
The issues of unemployment and underemployment for women, from the current recession, will last for the rest of their lives. Women already typically retire with half the superannuation balance of men. I fear this statistic will worsen as a result of the government's ill-conceived early super release scheme. Worse still, in recent weeks we've seen the Liberal Party starting to lay the groundwork to peel back plans for increases to the superannuation rate.
To better bring light to these issues, last Friday was Equal Pay Day. This day marks the 59th additional day, on average, women work to earn the same amount as men in any given financial year—59 days. Put simply, it reflects a national gender pay gap of 14 per cent. That's a full-time average weekly earnings difference of $253.60 a week. In my home state of New South Wales the pay gap figure is higher, at 15.34 per cent. Sadly, that hasn't budged for some time.
Another indication emblematic of a Liberal government that doesn't get it after almost seven years in government is that last year the Treasurer claimed in question time that the gender pay gap had closed. Although I wish that was the case, wishing does not make it so, and these figures bear that assessment out. In June the minister representing the Minister for Women said during an MPI, 'What you hear from the opposition is a long, ongoing, bleak, dreary narrative about entrenched disadvantage. You know, it's just last century.' Well, I wish it were just last century.
The Prime Minister has promised an update of the government's women's economic security statement in June, and we're still waiting. Let's hope the next statement, unlike the 2018 one, has a plan to close the gender pay gap, a genuine reform agenda that tackles job losses in female dominated industries, the gender pay gap and the discrimination that underpins these issues; one with strategies that assist women to boost their super balances and embrace the magic of compound interest and set women up comfortably for retirement, not one of poverty and homelessness. But I fear, like so many other Australians, that working women are going to be left behind by this government. With 400,000 Australians set to lose their jobs between now and Christmas, many of them women, we really need action now.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Headspace
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that Headspace was established by the Howard Government in 2006;
(2) notes that:
(a) there are currently 113 Headspace services operating nationally, including 54 services located in rural and regional Australia; and
(b) in 2018-19, the Government provided $95.7 million to commission Headspace services in rural areas;
(3) further acknowledges that in the 2019-20 Budget, the Youth Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan was outlined with funding of $509 million; and
(4) congratulates the Government for announcing a further $64 million to provide suicide prevention and mental health initiatives.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (18:47): The pandemic has changed the way we live, work, study and connect with others. Whether it be weddings or anniversaries or 50th birthday celebrations, they are all decidedly smaller. While it's disappointing that we can't share these milestones with friends, we know that this will pass and the opportunity to do so again will return. But for the younger generation, the opportunity, once lost, is difficult to regain. Football finals and schoolies, end-of-year celebrations, may be a cause for concern for parents, but they are also a rite of passage for young people. The necessary restrictions have negatively impacted every aspect of what we would consider to be the normal day-to-day activities of our young people.
Cognisant of the facts, the South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People, Helen Connolly, embarked upon a consultation process to better understand the experiences of young people during the time of COVID. The reflections are best encapsulated in a quote from 16-year-old Brayden: 'I never expected a health crisis to affect every aspect of my life other than my health.' But while our young people may be physically healthy, the commissioner's report highlights that the pandemic has a profound impact on their mental health. In part due to a lack of connection, social ties forged through schools, part-time work, sport, and other activities have all been suspended during the pandemic. For others, their family's financial uncertainty weighs heavily on their minds, as does their own future employment prospects as they leave secondary school or university and prepare to enter a very competitive job market.
The concern is not unfounded. Analysis by the Foundation for Young Australians estimated that the real youth unemployment rate in Mayo, as of May 2020, was likely closer to 27 per cent. Our young people are reporting negative impacts on their level of stress and anxiety and feelings of isolation, and they are unsure about where to turn for support.
One of the best places to turn for support is headspace. With more than 75 per cent of mental health issues developing before a person turns 25, I've always viewed their service as an incredibly needed investment in our young people. And, since 2016, I've campaigned for a headspace presence in my community of Mayo, working with our consultative group to ensure that we not only secured a shopfront in Mount Barker but we also now have a satellite service in Victor Harbor, outreach down to Strathalbyn and all the way up to the other end of the electorate at Birdwood and of course Kangaroo Island. But, frustratingly, these services continue to be administered through the Murray Bridge headspace. We really need our own fully fledged headspace in Mount Barker.
We know that the challenges for young people are going to grow. We know that COVID has exacerbated mental health. We know that it has sent anxiety rates soaring, especially for young people, and so the demand for support, particularly in a growing region like my region, is not going to abate. And it should not be forgotten that the young people living in Kangaroo Island and Adelaide Hills have gone through bushfires as well this year, with many losing their homes.
With the official commencement of the bushfire season in just a couple of weeks, that anxiety is already creeping back into many parts of our community. I've talked at many of our high schools about this challenge. This has not been an easy year for my community, but with access to the right supports our young people will have the tools that they need to navigate these uncertain times and to identify the opportunities that lay ahead. So I will continue to advocate for more resources for headspace in Mayo so that our community can access the same kinds of services as if we were living in a metropolitan area.
I must commend this government. Actually, it was the previous member for Sturt who started headspace back in 2006, a long, long time ago, and I think it's something that former Minister Pyne is very proud of. It's a matter that perhaps we sometimes forget who were the great architects of these services. I know headspace has saved many lives in my community and I'm sure many lives of young people right across Australia. Whether it be bushfires, pandemics or recessions, our issues don't stop at the toll gate or the ferry terminal. I'm looking forward to advocating for more health services for my young people in Mayo.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (18:52): It's a privilege to be able to speak on this motion. I want to acknowledge the kind words that were made by the member for Mayo and the contribution acknowledging the legacy of the former member for Sturt Christopher Pyne in establishing headspace centres across Australia, because we all know how important mental health is for the success of young people's lives. We know that almost one in five, or 3.8 million, Australians face a mental health challenge every single year and that more than 25 per cent of mental health issues develop before an Australian turns the age of 25. So providing important, essential and readily available mental health support services is critical not just for the individuals who are impacted but, truthfully, for the success of our country, because ultimately it's the human capital that's lost when mental health becomes a burden that cannot be overcome.
That's why it's so central to what this government is focused on. In fact, one of the first initiatives that was announced during COVID-19 pandemic was from the federal government about the significant top-up in resources for mental health services, because we knew that when you had a health crisis and an economic crisis that'll follow the strain isn't just in people's physical bodies, it isn't just in their hip pockets but it's the strain that comes from losing jobs and the isolation and the challenges that people will face as a consequence of dealing with quarantine and making sure they're able to get back on their feet. It won't end tomorrow; it's not going to end at the end of the lockdown period in Victoria or in other parts of the country where they've had restrictive measures. This is going to go on, and we need resilient Australians to help build the future of our great country.
There was $509 million allocated for the Youth Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan in the federal budget, including $375 million for headspace specifically. And I know—and I'm sure I'm speaking on behalf of many members here, but I will stress particularly Victorian members—we have had so many examples of people coming into our offices needing help and assistance, particularly younger Australians. Let's not underestimate what's happening. We're seeing young Australians who otherwise are happy in their lives suddenly finding themselves essentially trapped in their own homes, missing rites of passage, and simple activities that we know are so critical to people's total wellbeing—physical activity, being able to go and kick a footy or play netball or whatever sport—are suddenly gone in Victoria. That's why the sooner we get out of this period, the better.
I talk regularly to young people who have had to adjust to education online, but they're missing school formals and valedictory addresses. That's why, in the Goldstein office, we recognised this challenge early and actually set up and recorded a video conference with our local headspace centre in Bentleigh. We got experts along and we had a good old chat on Facebook Live, and recorded it so that it was available in an ongoing way so that, if young Australians and young people, particularly in Goldstein, are facing problems, there is a nonconfrontational way where, in their own time and space, they can find out how to get access to the support services that they need. I particularly want to thank headspace Bentleigh for taking the time and being involved with us in that initiative. It has had a very large number of views and we've had a lot of feedback from local residents, particularly younger residents, that it's helped them access the services that they need right now.
I particularly want to thank Peter Pamouktsis, the headspace Bentleigh youth facilitator, a really impressive young man who was able to articulate, from a young person's perspective, the issues that he is facing and how he is going to address them, as well as, of course, helping others in providing an accessible pathway and a relatable contact point about the challenges that he faced. I also want to thank Emma Halpin, who is the clinical psychologist, who also came on and talked about management and resilient strategies that people can practise at home in this difficult time, making sure that, if they can't cope, they know that there's an entirely open pathway for them to get support and assistance. I also want to thank the headspace centre manager Jane Laidlaw. She, along with others at the headspace Bentley clinic bring together these services so that, when people walk in the front door and just need somebody to talk to and a pathway, that is available to them. They make us so proud. They are essential to meeting this challenge head on.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (18:57): This is an important motion. We are all concerned about the mental health of our young people especially. There are four areas that I feel are important when we talk about headspace. It is important that we make headspace exempt from the telehealth requirement to have an initial face-to-face consultation. We need a national scheme for real-time data collection on suicide in general, and youth suicide in particular. We need a coordinated sector approach, bringing together health, departments of community and justice, education and local service providers. Finally, we need support programs that provide prevention and resilience.
I thank the member for Bass for providing us with the opportunity to speak on this important issue of youth mental health and suicide prevention. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank all the healthcare professionals who are working in this space. I acknowledge the work of larger groups like headspace, Lifeline, ReachOut, SANE Australia and Beyond Blue but also the smaller local groups in my electorate of Warringah like Heart On My Sleeve, Gotcha4Life, The Raze Foundation, CatholicCare and Community Northern Beaches. These professionals are on the front lines. They're saving lives, but they need our support.
There's no denying that the COVID-19 pandemic has hit our youth extremely hard, and they are feeling the stress and anxiety of that burden. The figures are sobering. The latest study to come out of the Brain and Mind Centre at University of Sydney predicts that, over the next five years, the prolonged economic impact of COVID-19 will result in a 30 per cent increase in the number of suicides by 15- to 24-year-olds. As a mother of teenagers, these statistics terrify me; as a lawmaker, they challenge me. What can we be doing better in this place to catch those kids before they fall through the cracks?
In the short time I have this evening, there are a couple of things I think we should focus on. The first is to make headspace exempt from the telehealth requirement to have that initial face-to-face consultation. At our local headspace provider in Brookvale, workers have reported a dramatic increase in demand. But it's not just the numbers that have increased, it's the severity of the cases that are presenting. Dr Gilda Brunello, who works there, says there has been a shift from cases being mild or moderate to now being severe.
While talking with Dr Brunello, she also raised with me a significant problem created by the recent changes to telehealth, whereby doctors were now required to have had a physical consultation with their patient in the past 12 months. Prior to this change, they were able to access a patient remotely and develop a mental healthcare plan via telehealth. So the requirement of the face-to-face not only creates a very real health risk for the patient, the doctor and the support staff, but it may lead to delays in desperate kids getting the initial assessment they require. I also call on the minister to consider making headspace services exempt from the requirement of that physical face-to-face consultation.
We need a national scheme for real-time data collection on suicide in general and youth suicide in particular. There's a lag—sometimes 12 to 24 months—in the reporting of suicides in Australia. It makes it incredibly hard for healthcare workers to identify and react in real time to local issues that may be contributing to suicide rates. I was pleased to see last week that the New South Wales mental health minister, Bronnie Taylor, announced the state government will fast-track their suicide register and have it up and running by October in New South Wales. This will allow police, health and justice agencies to access virtual real-time data on suicides to better target support services. We also need that coordinated sector approach, bringing together departments of health, education, justice and community with local service providers.
It's vitally important to support programs that provide prevention and resilience, not just focus on crisis care. Gotcha4Life, which operates in Warringah, is one such organisation. They say it is so vital to be able to engage with youth in the schools. We also have a program—Mitch Wallis from Heart On My Sleeve says, 'Connection to supportive relationships is the No.1 resilience factor associated with cultivating and protecting positive emotional wellbeing.' With that in mind, I want to end tonight by reminding all of us, but particularly our kids, that it's okay to not be okay. It's okay to be broken and to ask for help. And please, if you're struggling, ask for help.
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (19:02): Improving the mental health of Australians is one of the Morrison government's key priorities. We know that 3.8 million, or almost one in five, Australians face challenges to their mental health every year. We also know that more than three-quarters of ongoing mental health conditions begin before the age of 25. That's why the Morrison government understands that the mental health of our young people is especially important.
These facts have never been more evident or more important than during the current coronavirus pandemic. The additional stresses the pandemic has placed on our young people can impact their lives through to adulthood. Students have faced, and continue to face, uncertainty in their studies, particularly those in year 12, and we are thinking of them all. Many young people have also witnessed the stress that the coronavirus has placed on their parents and their jobs and their family situations. Challenging times such as these can have long-lasting impacts on young people, affecting them at a vital time in their development. Now more than ever it's crucial that our young people receive the support and care they need to help them stay on track or to help them get back on track.
Early intervention is essential to minimise longer term impacts. Headspace was created to serve this purpose. Established in 2006 by the Howard government, headspace currently operates 123 services around the nation. This is an increase on the 113 services mentioned in this motion when it was originally moved, highlighting our ongoing commitment to the headspace service. With a focus on early intervention, these services provide tailored mental health support for 12- to 25-year-olds. Critically, of the 123 services, 62 of these are located in rural and regional areas—another increase for communities which are not just dealing with the global pandemic, but have recently also suffered through terrible drought and catastrophic bushfires. The headspace network is clearly at the heart of the Morrison government's vision for young people's primary mental health services, and we are continuing to expand these services.
In October 2018, I was delighted to have Prime Minister Morrison visit Boothby to announce a further $51.8 million for headspace sustainability funding. Down at the Glenelg Surf Life Saving Club we gathered together a wonderful group of young people who had been helped by headspace and who had gone on to work for headspace, as well as a range of amazing counsellors and headspace supporters, to talk about what that funding would mean for them. Additionally, under this measure, each existing headspace site nationally will receive an increase in funding of approximately eight per cent.
Following this announcement, we continued to support the headspace initiative and efforts within the youth mental health and suicide prevention space. In December 2018, we announced $6.4 million for new headspace satellite services. Then, in January 2019, we committed a further $47 million for the young ambassadors for headspace program. The 2019-20 federal budget reinforced the notion that mental health was a key priority for our government. We further outlined and expanded our youth mental health and suicide prevention plan. A $509 million strategy, the plan allocated $375 million for headspace, which included the expansion of the network by 30 new sites—and the results of this are already coming to fruition. The plan will also deliver reduced wait times and improved quality within headspace, along with early psychosis youth services throughout their centres.
As part of our continued funding, my electorate of Boothby will also see the benefits of our desire to address the issue of youth mental health. Through the 2019 election, we committed $3.9 million to establish a new headspace centre at Marion, which will serve my local community. Once complete, the new centre will provide vital services and deliver innovative support for young Australians in my local community. I'm pleased to see that these guaranteed and frontline services will help deliver support by providing information, advice, counselling and treatment to our youth in need. The federal government is providing $750,000 to the Adelaide Primary Health Network this year for the headspace Marion fit-out and recurrent funding of $912,000 each year for service delivery.
I wish to commend the Minister for Health for his ongoing commitment to headspace and his dedication to assisting Australians in addressing the issue of mental health. Through the difficult times we are currently facing, he has shown a clear understanding of the need to assist Australians in dealing with the increased pressures on their mental health with $1.1 billion announced in response to the coronavirus pandemic to boost mental health services, increase domestic violence support and increase Medicare assistance for people at home.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (19:07): I rise today to speak on the motion put forward by the member for Bass, and I thank her for bringing the matter before the House. Headspace is a fantastic service, and I've worked with headspace in Campbelltown in my electorate since it started in 2006. Headspace, of course, provides services for young people. In my outer metropolitan electorate it was very difficult for young people to access mental health support services until the advent of headspace, and headspace has been a wonderful addition to our health services. This, I'm sure, is true throughout the country. The work undertaken by headspace supports all clinicians and has been an excellent development. I thank Minister Pyne for his work in starting it, and I have spoken to him about this previously.
The present pandemic, of course, has impacted us all. I don't think there is anyone in this place that hasn't been impacted in some way by the pandemic. I worry a lot about the impact of this pandemic on young people, whose brains are still developing and who are suffering a lot of very difficult issues due to the uncertainty of the future, in terms of not only education but also jobs and services—indeed, the uncertainty of their futures. Those of us who have been around for a while know that we will get through this crisis and that there will be a functioning society at the end of it, but services such as headspace are vitally important in providing those supports for young people. Headspace in Campbelltown in my electorate are a wonderful service, and I have visited there often. They have always made me feel welcome, and I have listened to their concerns. It's paramount in these uncertain times that we stay connected. Telehealth was a good way people could stay connected with their physicians, with their services and with their clinicians.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): We no longer have a quorum. The proceedings will be suspended and resumed when the chair is taken.
Sitting suspended from 19:10 to 19:15
Dr FREELANDER: I'm a proud supporter of headspace and, as I say, I was very grateful that the director of services, Charishma Kaliyanda, an old friend of mine, invited me along just before we came to this sitting. Charishma and her team—the wonderful team that it is—raised some concerns with me about the services provided. They're very concerned about the reductions in telehealth services and, in particular, the requirement for a physical consultation with a doctor before a mental health plan can be organised. They're concerned about young people in rural and regional areas and they're concerned about the overwhelming nature of the increases in referrals they've had in the last few months. I understand this. It is very important that we make sure that our funding and our services are able to keep up with demand.
I would like to thank the team at headspace Campbelltown for all the support that they've given me over the years, and I will do my best to support them. In particular, I want to thank them for the help they've given us in reaching out to young people, particularly the year 12 school leavers, and trying to provide them with information on how they can access services if they are feeling stressed. I've reiterated my concerns about the effect of the pandemic on young people and we are doing our best in our office, with the help of our local headspace, to provide the services we can to young people. There are many other organisations that are providing support: the Black Dog Institute, Beyond Blue, the local hospital mental health services, the local councils and other local health support services, such as the general practitioner network et cetera. We need to get equitable headspace services throughout the country. I think that's very important and I have written to the minister about this. A scourge on our society are the mental health issues that are really coming to the fore during the pandemic. I know that everyone in this House wishes the best for all who are suffering at the present difficult time.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (19:17): I thank the member for Bass for this motion. Her first speech included the topic of mental health, which she is very passionate about. I too care deeply about mental health and I know that I'm not alone, with millions of Australian families affected every year by issues around mental health. My family is by no means unique, but in my first speech I spoke about my beautiful cousin Matthew. I was very close to Matthew. He loved music and made musical instruments. He travelled to Ireland to learn the specialist skills to make guitars. We loved making music together. He had a beautiful but troubled soul. As a family, we knew something wasn't right, but, in rural Victoria, where he lived, there were very few mental health services in the 1990s—certainly none that were youth orientated. Matthew died by suicide at the age of 25. I often wonder whether things would have been different if he had been born 20 years later and he could have accessed the supportive services that are available now.
It is important that people experiencing mental health challenges receive support as early as possible to help them stay on track. Like most diseases, early intervention is key for prevention, but also to minimise long-term effects. That is why support services like headspace are so vital. Headspaces across Australia work to assist young people between the ages of 12 and 25. This is a great legacy from the Howard government, as has been mentioned already in this place and by the previous member for Sturt, Christopher Pyne. There are now 123 headspace centres right across Australia and these provide low-cost or free services via Medicare. Each one is tailored to the needs of the community it is located in. I'm so delighted the Morrison government has committed $3½ million to having a headspace in Higgins. Headspace offers holistic support for young people that includes clinical mental health professionals, judgment-free physical and sexual health advice from onsite GPs, alcohol and drug counsellors who can provide advice on available treatments, and work and study assistance with vocational workers and counsellors who can assist with managing the workloads of studying and jobseeking.
As a paediatrician and former chair of a local school board in Melbourne, headspace services in schools is of particular interest to me. Our school years can be some of the best years, friends and teachers shaping us, and we begin to develop a concept of who we are as a person, but they can be a pressure cooker. Friendships change. Schoolwork, exams, teachers and home life can all add to a feeling of being very overwhelmed, and this can lead not just to anxiety but to depression.
In these formative years, support is needed more than ever and even more during this COVID-19 pandemic. Government investment will mean that schools right around Australia will have a national workforce that supports, engages and partners with schools to build good mental health literacy. It will help deal with the stigma of mental health before it has had a chance to take root. The educational mental health initiative Bee You is delivered by headspace and is aimed at promoting good mental health in primary and secondly school students. Headspace offers sessions for teachers, students and parents, all aimed at enhancing mental health understanding, and supports a holistic implementation in schools. This initiative also provides crisis support when the unthinkable happens and there is a suicide within a school community. As a previous chair of a school council, I know how that keeps the people who look after schools up at night.
Over 3.8 million Australians will experience a mental health challenge every year. In the times we are currently living in, these numbers are set to grow, as effects of social restrictions and uncertainty become apparent. It is a key priority of this government to ensure that every Australian has access to mental health services if needed. A strong and resilient population makes for a strong and resilient nation, and it is a key priority of the Morrison government that people can get quality care and support when they need it. A $509 million Youth Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan, in 2019-20 federal government funding, which includes $370 million for headspace, is something that all Australians can be proud of.
Protecting our children is so vitally important. They are our future. I'm proud to stand in this House to highlight the dedication of this government in building this country's mental wealth. I commend the member for Bass for her motion.
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (19:22): I look back at my teenage years and my early 20s and things seemed so much simpler, and I'm sure they were. There was no internet, no Facebook, no mobile telephones and things just seemed slower. So it's little wonder, these days, that so many teenagers and young people are struggling with life. If it's not cyberbullying it's the pressure of showing how good you look on Facebook or what you have, whether you've got the latest thing. The reality is, half the people who are posting are just as miserable as the rest of us—in the nicest way possible. Five minutes on Facebook would make anyone depressed.
To compound the problem, adding coronavirus and all its uncertainty, losing jobs, the lack of jobs, not being able to travel, not being able to have your school formal—I think it's tough on our youth these days and the older generation are much too harsh, much too quick to criticise. I say to my boy, 'When I was your age, when I was 13, I had a job.' Apparently, industrial relations laws don't allow that now. But this is why it's so important to have headspace, a youth-friendly mental health service and an investment into our youth, and an investment in the last year of $111.3 million to increase the number of headspaces—and I'm very happy that one was given to Kempsey, my home town.
Just two weeks ago we had a groundbreaking ceremony held by Uncle Fred of the Dhanggati and Thangatti nations. I spoke to 23-year-old Corey Stocks, who said, 'This is one of the best things that happen to Kempsey in years.' He said it will provide a place for the Macleay Valley young people to go and give themselves a better shot at life. Before this, they had to travel to Port Macquarie or they had to travel to Coffs Harbour for the services that they needed, or they had to see a school counsellor—that presented its own problems, where you see a young person walk into an office. The new Kempsey headspace is being delivered through a $3.4 million investment, creating 10 new jobs in Kempsey, half of which will be filled by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. But headspace is only part of the solution. It has to start at home, in schools and in our communities, because invariably the young people who attend have faced trauma, and not of their doing. They 're victims of domestic violence, they 've witnessed drug and alcohol abuse, and they 're victims of sexual abuse. We have to change our way of thinking and acting. Only then will we change the system.
I offer my congratulations on the Kempsey Community Suicide Prevention Action Plan, being delivered by the Macleay Valley Workplace Learning Centre. They 've trained over 200 people within our community in suicide prevention, intervention, crisis response and bereavement training. They 've formed a successful collaboration with the Kempsey TAFE campus and have engaged well with the Macleay Valley Workplace Learning Centre staff.
The policies of the coalition government, indeed since the former Prime Minister John Howard's era, are making a difference. They 're certainly making a difference to people in my community. It's just a shame that these gains have been stymied by the incredible challenges we're facing right now. I'd like to thank this government and previous governments for their contribution to mental health. It's something that will continue. It won't change. It's not the silver bullet, but it is a support network until we can make those changes in our families, in our homes and in our schools and support our kids, who are our future.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (19:27): I did have a riveting superannuation speech, but I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:28
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Questions in writing are no longer published in Hansard. To view the latest questions in writing, visit
www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/HoR/Questions_In_Writing.