The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 9.30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (09:32):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Australians. Protecting the community from terrorist threats is one of the government's highest priorities.
Australia has a robust national security and counterterrorism framework to ensure that our agencies have the powers they need to prevent terrorist attacks and manage those who would seek to commit them. Since the national terror threat level was raised to 'probable' in 2014, the Australian government has passed 19 tranches of national security legislation to ensure agencies have the powers they need to prevent terrorist attacks. These laws are kept under constant review to ensure that our legal frameworks are appropriate and adapted to the evolving threat environment.
In 2016, the Australian government introduced the high-risk terrorist offender regime into the Commonwealth Criminal Code. This provides for the continuing detention of high-risk terrorist offenders who pose an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence at the end of their custodial sentence.
The Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020 is the latest step of this government, in partnership with states and territories, to safeguard Australians from the threat of terrorism. The bill will establish an extended supervision order scheme to ensure that high-risk terrorist offenders who are released into the community at the end of their custodial sentences are subject to close supervision in proportion to the level of risk they pose to community safety.
As we have learnt from the appalling 2019 London Bridge and 2020 Streatham attacks in the UK, convicted terrorist offenders can pose a very real threat to the community at the conclusion of their sentence. With several convicted terrorist offenders due to complete their custodial sentences of imprisonment in the next five years, the need for effective risk management measures to keep our community safe is greater than ever.
The bill seeks to broaden the range of tools available to address the risk posed by convicted terrorist offenders. The threshold for a Supreme Court to order continuing detention is high, commensurate with the severity of continuing detention. Extended supervision orders will allow supreme courts to impose tailored supervisory conditions specific to the risk posed by the terrorist offender if released into the community, where the court is not satisfied that continuing detention is appropriate to prevent that risk. While control orders are available, they can only be made by federal courts and provide for a smaller range of possible conditions.
Under an extended supervision order, a Supreme Court may impose any conditions (which includes prohibitions, restrictions or obligations) that it is satisfied are reasonably necessary, and reasonably appropriate and adapted, for the purpose of protecting the community from the unacceptable risk of the offender committing a serious terrorism offence.
The establishment of a Commonwealth scheme for extended supervision orders responds to recommendations of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Criminal Code amendments
The bill amends the Criminal Code to make extended supervision orders available for eligible terrorist offenders.
Where the Minister for Home Affairs seeks a continuing detention order, and the court is not satisfied of the thresholds for this order, the bill will require the court to consider an extended supervision order as an alternative. The minister may also apply to a state or territory Supreme Court for an extended supervision order if the minister considers this appropriate.
The extended supervision order scheme has been designed to allow the court to tailor orders to address the particular risk posed by each terrorist offender. The offender must comply with the conditions set by the court, and offences will apply to breaches of those conditions. The maximum duration of an extended supervision order is three years, but subsequent orders may be made if the offender continues to pose an unacceptable risk to the community.
Courts may appoint relevant experts, such as psychologists or psychiatrists, to assist the court to assess the risk posed by the offender. An extended supervision order must be reviewed annually by a court, or sooner if the offender or Minister for Home Affairs applies for a review. The court must vary the order if the court is not satisfied that the period of the order, or the conditions imposed by the order, remain reasonably necessary to protect the community from the unacceptable risk posed by the offender.
The bill also includes provisions to support the operation of the scheme, relating to information-sharing arrangements, the ability for the minister to direct an offender to undergo an assessment by a relevant expert, and the ability for the AFP Commissioner to enter into arrangements for the performance of functions related to the scheme—for example, electronic monitoring.
Amendments to other legislation
The bill also amends other legislation to support the effective implementation of the extended supervision order scheme.
To ensure the compliance of an offender on an extended supervision order, the bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 to extend the existing regime of monitoring warrants for control orders to also include extended supervision orders and interim supervision orders. These amendments will allow law enforcement to monitor the compliance of an offender either with their consent or with a warrant to search their premises or person.
Amendments to the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 will allow law enforcement to obtain warrants for electronic surveillance to monitor compliance with supervision orders and inform the minister's decision as to whether to apply for a post-sentence order.
The bill will also amend the international production order regime contingent on the passage of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020.
The bill amends the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act 2004 to extend existing provisions which apply to control order proceedings, to allow the court to consider sensitive information in extended supervision order proceedings without that information being disclosed to the offender or their legal representative. This will ensure that the process of applying for an extended supervision order does not reveal sensitive sources, which is of utmost importance in a custodial environment.
To ensure that the offender receives a fair hearing, the bill extends the existing special advocate regime which is currently in place for control order proceedings. The bill expressly prohibits the court from considering court-only evidence in determining whether to make a continuing detention order, as is currently the case.
Conclusion
This bill is an important addition to the government's response to the terrorism threat. The amendments to the Criminal Code have been approved by a majority of states and territories, as required by the Intergovernmental Agreement on Counter-Terrorism Laws.
To enable the parliament to give full consideration to this bill, it will be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (09:40):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Fair Work Amendment (Improving Unpaid Parental Leave for Parents of Stillborn Babies and Other Measures) Bill 2020 introduces a package of important changes to the unpaid parental leave provisions in the Fair Work Act.
COVID-19 has dramatically changed how parents are combining work and care. That's why, in addition to the various measures already introduced by the government to support employees impacted by COVID-19, the government is moving ahead with delivering on important reforms to unpaid parental leave as part of its ongoing commitment to parents and families.
These changes will provide improved support to employees who experience stillbirth or the death of a child in the first 24 months of life and they introduce much-needed flexibility into the unpaid parental leave provisions, which employees and employers alike have criticised for being too rigid and preventing them from agreeing on more flexible leave arrangements following birth.
Under these changes, parents whose babies are hospitalised following birth will also have greater flexibility in deciding how they can use their unpaid parental leave.
Finally, the changes will also provide all parents with more choices in how they take their unpaid parental leave in a way that suits their family, to complement the changes the government recently introduced to increase flexibility in the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme.
Stillbirth and death of a child in the first 24 months of life
Stillbirth is a tragic event for any family. Six babies are stillborn every day in Australia, making it the most common form of child mortality in Australia.
Informed by the recommendations of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Stillbirth Research and Education, the government is developing the National Stillbirth Action and Implementation Plan. The government has brought together key government and non-government organisations to improve stillbirth prevention and care; raise awareness and strengthen education; improve bereavement care and community support following stillbirth; improve stillbirth reporting and data collection; and prioritise stillbirth research.
Under the current Fair Work Act, parents on birth-related unpaid parental leave who experience a stillbirth or the death of their child in the first 24 months of life can be recalled to work from their leave with just six weeks notice from their employer. Parents on adoption-related unpaid parental leave whose child dies in the first 24 months of life can be recalled to work from their leave with just four weeks notice.
If these parents are not already on unpaid parental leave, the Fair Work Act allows an employer to cancel any upcoming planned leave in these circumstances.
While recognising that most employers are obviously supportive of their employees, particularly where they have suffered such a tragic loss, this bill will ensure that the entitlement to unpaid parental leave for a parent whose baby is stillborn will be precisely as it would have been if their baby had lived.
For an employee whose child dies during the first 24 months of life, the bill will ensure that their employer will no longer be able to cancel any upcoming unpaid parental leave they might have, or, if they are already on leave, require them to return to work earlier than they may wish to.
The bill will also provide better and clearer access to compassionate leave in relation to stillborn babies and babies who die during a parent's unpaid parental leave. The government understands that employers want to support employees who have experienced such a loss. Under this bill, an employee will be allowed to access compassionate leave for their stillborn or infant babies when already on unpaid parental leave without having to forgo their right to either.
Employers can of course continue to offer leave that goes beyond the minimum safety net, including paid parental leave through enterprise agreements, employment contracts and workplace policies.
While recognising that the pain of stillbirth and infant death can never be repaired through a workplace entitlement, the government trusts that these changes will provide some peace of mind for parents in these traumatic circumstances.
Premature birth and immediate hospitalisation
The bill will also remove a current legislative barrier that hampers sensible arrangements being made at the workplace level where an employee's baby is hospitalised immediately following birth.
Many parents of babies who are hospitalised after birth—a situation that particularly affects babies born prematurely—have said they would like the option to work while their baby is in hospital so that they may have more time at home with their babies once they are discharged from hospital. Currently under the Fair Work Act, if an employer and employee agree for the employee to return to work while their baby is in hospital, the employee will then lose the remainder of their unpaid parental leave entitlement.
The bill will remove this restriction, allowing employers and employees to agree to the employee 'pausing', in effect, their unpaid parental leave, returning to work for the period their baby is in hospital and resuming leave once their baby is discharged from hospital.
It is important that the legislative framework gives employers and employees the ability to discuss and make arrangements that suit them. Importantly, those parents who pause their unpaid parental leave will ultimately have more unpaid parental leave available to spend with their baby at home.
Flexible unpaid parental leave
Finally, this bill will make unpaid parental leave more flexible for families to structure their work and caring in ways that suit them by introducing the capacity for an employee to take a portion of their unpaid parental leave flexibly.
This change will provide employees with greater choice in how they use up to 30 days of their existing 12-month unpaid parental leave entitlement.
This change complements the new flexible parental leave payment under the government's Paid Parental Leave scheme. Employees will be able to take up to 30 days of unpaid parental leave flexibly and claim flexible parental leave payment from Services Australia for these days, if they are eligible. Ensuring there is a corresponding leave entitlement to enable parents to claim flexible parental leave payments will reduce unnecessary stress for parents in the joyful but often very demanding period of new parenthood.
Under the proposed changes to the unpaid parental leave entitlement and the recent changes to the parental leave payment, parents will have access to up to 30 flexible days until the baby's second birthday.
This change is significant in that it reduces the current rigidity of unpaid parental leave. Many parents would like to combine working and caring for their newborn child but are not currently able to achieve this blend using unpaid parental leave, which generally must be taken in a single continuous block. Once a parent returns to work, they will usually forfeit any remaining untaken leave.
This current rule may discourage women in particular from reconnecting with the workforce after their baby is born as they will lose their entitlement to any further unpaid parental leave, and that may deter men from taking leave to care for their newborns as they must stop working completely while they are on unpaid parental leave.
The new capacity for parents to take up to 30 days of their 12-month entitlement to unpaid parental leave flexibly could mean, for example, a new parent spending a block of unpaid parental leave with their newborn after birth and then taking 30 days flexibly after they return to work.
Employees will be able to take these days as a single day, groups of days or a single continuous block.
The measures in the bill will require employees to give their employer appropriate notice of their intention to use some of their 12-month entitlement flexibly and separate notice before actually taking flexible unpaid parental leave, aligned with the existing notice provisions for unpaid parental leave in the Fair Work Act as far as possible.
This will therefore assist employers to best support their employees who are new parents while also balancing and managing workflow priorities and the needs of their broader workforce.
Conclusion
The amendments in the bill are balanced reforms that will provide new parents with more choices and flexibility about how they use parental leave, and they reflect contemporary expectations about how families should be able to structure work and family arrangements.
These expectations and the needs of Australian families for greater flexibility to combine work and care have been brought into sharp relief by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. More flexibility for parents in how leave is taken following birth, we believe, is an important part of reshaping how we approach work and care.
The improvements to the unpaid parental leave provisions of the Fair Work Act contained in the bill have been carefully considered and consulted on at length. They are based on the data and evidence presented to the government by key stakeholders, including, importantly, many parents themselves.
On behalf of the government, I want to thank all of those parents who shared their stories, noting that for many of those parents these were incredibly painful memories to relive. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Photography of Parliamentary Proceedings
The SPEAKER (09:48): As the Leader of the House knows, and as members would all know from question time, we have allowed the photographers to shoot from the ceremonial doors. That will continue again today. That will be the last day that happens, and it's been to capture the chamber from different angles, as I've said. During question time today, the only change will be for the first five minutes or so and the last five minutes or so; two photographers will be shooting from the doors immediately behind my chair, and that will be the final set of doors that they've got. As I said, it's only the angle that's different, and you would have noticed there are some different shots of the chamber in some of the newspapers. I just wanted to say that before we got too busy, which we're about to do now.
MOTIONS
COVID-19
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (09:49): I seek leave of the House to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Member for Hughes and the Member for Dawson continue to claim that hydroxychloroquine should be used against COVID-19;
(b) these claims are contradicted by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Chief Medical Officer, who said in a press conference on 31 August 2020 that "the medical advice is it is not useful as a medicine" for COVID-19; and
(c) in the same press conference, when given an opportunity to support the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Chief Medical Officer, the Minister for Health instead supported the "people on many sides of this Parliament who will express individual views"; and
(2) commends the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Chief Medical Officer for accepting and promoting evidence, and urges the Minister for Health to do the same.
Leave not granted.
Mr BOWEN: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for McMahon from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Member for Hughes and the Member for Dawson continue to claim that hydroxychloroquine should be used against COVID-19;
(b) these claims are contradicted by the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Chief Medical Officer, who said in a press conference on 31 August 2020 that "the medical advice is it is not useful as a medicine" for COVID-19; and
(c) in the same press conference, when given an opportunity to support the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Chief Medical Officer, the Minister for Health instead supported the "people on many sides of this Parliament who will express individual views"; and
(2) commends the Therapeutic Goods Administration and Chief Medical Officer for accepting and promoting evidence, and urges the Minister for Health to do the same.
In a pandemic there will be misinformation but it should not come from this chamber and the government—
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (09:51): I move:
That the Member no longer be heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for McMahon be no further heard.
The House divided. [09:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (09:58): Is the motion seconded?
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (09:58): It is. We don't need fake quacks pushing crap.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (09:58): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is the member for Chifley be no further heard.
The House divided. [10:00]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:03): The question is that the motion moved by the member for McMahon be disagreed to.
The House divided. [10:03]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:05):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today, I am introducing Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020.
The Commonwealth government has many important roles to play. But one of the most important roles is our exclusive responsibility for setting Australia's foreign policy, negotiating treaties and representing our nation internationally.
That is not, however, to undervalue the important contribution that state, territory and local government entities make to advancing Australia's foreign policy.
The types of arrangements entered into at these levels of government vary—from strategic partnership arrangements, to memoranda of understanding to encourage investment or cultural exchange, to industry-specific cooperation arrangements on, for example, education, energy or agriculture.
Most of these arrangements are a useful and productive part of Australia's huge breadth of international engagement, and it is obviously important that we continue to encourage those links.
The Commonwealth government, however, does not currently have visibility of all the arrangements which state, territory and local governments, and related entities including public universities, have made, or intend to make, with foreign governments.
While the Commonwealth government sets a foreign policy agenda to both protect and promote the national interest, there is no consistent practice or requirement for state, territory and local government, as well as Australian public universities, to consult with the Commonwealth when entering into arrangements with foreign governments.
This process, or lack of process, creates two very significant challenges.
The first challenge is that, without Commonwealth engagement, there is a very real and significant risk that arrangements may be entered into that are inconsistent with, and in some cases may even undermine, Australia's broader foreign policy objectives.
The second challenge is that, without this visibility, the nation is unable to leverage these relationships to further our national objectives in our international engagements.
This gap in Commonwealth oversight must be remedied, and this bill will create a process where we are all—federal, state, territory and local governments—working effectively together to ensure arrangements are consistent with our national approach to foreign relations.
Creating a process
The bill will enable the Minister for Foreign Affairs to assess arrangements between state, territory or local governments or Australian public universities, and a foreign government or related entities, and determine whether they:
1. adversely affect Australia's foreign relations; or
2. are inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy.
The bill will capture all written arrangements with all foreign governments. This includes, for example, national level foreign governments, and their departments or agencies, and sub-national foreign governments such as provinces, states or municipalities.
The bill is country agnostic and arrangement agnostic—the intention is not to target one particular type of arrangement or any specific country.
We recognise, however, that there will be divergence in the likely impact that different types of arrangements have on Australia's foreign policy.
For this reason, the bill takes a nuanced approach, with different requirements for 'core' and 'non-core' arrangements.
Core arrangements
'Core' arrangements are those between state and territory governments and foreign national governments, reflecting that they are most likely to affect Australia's foreign policy and foreign relations.
The bill provides that the state or territory entity will require approval from the Minister for Foreign Affairs before commencing negotiations or entering into a core arrangement.
The minister will be empowered not to approve the negotiation or the arrangement where it would either adversely affect Australia's foreign relations or be inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy.
If the state or territory proceeds without the requisite approval the arrangement will either be automatically invalidated or required to be terminated or varied.
Non-core arrangements
A broader range of arrangements will fall within the scope of 'non-core' arrangements, including:
arrangements between a core state and territory entity and a non-core foreign entity—for example, a state government and a province of a foreign state;
arrangements between a non-core state and territory entity and a core foreign entity—for example a local council and a foreign government; and
arrangements between a non-core state and territory entity and a non-core foreign entity—for example between an Australian public university and a province of a foreign state.
State and territory entities will only need to notify the Minister for Foreign Affairs if they propose to enter a non-core arrangement, with the minister able to also make declarations concerning negotiations of such arrangements.
Where a negotiation or arrangement would adversely affect Australia's foreign relations or is inconsistent with our foreign policy, the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be empowered to prevent the negotiation or arrangement from proceeding.
Pre-existing arrangements
The bill also empowers the foreign minister to review any existing or prospective arrangement between state, territory and local government entities—including Australian public universities—and foreign governments.
This scheme is intentionally comprehensive to ensure that the Commonwealth can fulfil its constitutionally mandated role to conduct Australia's foreign affairs and represent Australia internationally.
We cannot do so without full knowledge of current and prospective arrangements across all levels of government.
Enforcement and rule-making
The bill provides for enforcement of decisions made under the bill through court injunctions.
The bill will also include a broad rule-making power to ensure the Minister for Foreign Affairs has the authority to make such rules as are necessary for the effective operation of the legislation. This includes exempting certain categories of state or territory entities and foreign entities from the scope of the bill, ensuring we can take a flexible approach and reduce any regulatory impost where possible.
Public Register
Finally, the bill will require the Minister for Foreign Affairs to maintain a publicly accessible register, to allow for transparency under the scheme, and to provide the public with information relating to foreign arrangements notified to the minister and any decisions made by the minister in relation to those arrangements.
Support to stakeholders
The government acknowledges that the bill is broad in scope, and deliberately so. To effectively manage Australia's foreign policy, the Commonwealth needs a comprehensive understanding of the arrangements being entered into at all levels of government.
We acknowledge that this process reflects a shift in approach for states, territories, local government and Australian public universities, and we will support stakeholders to transition to the new requirements under the bill.
Conclusion
In 1901, Alfred Deakin, who would later become Australia's second Prime Minister, wrote: 'It would be judicious and advantageous to provide by Act that the Commonwealth Executive shall administer all existing State laws in regard to … treaties and conventions, and all other external affairs. These should be entirely under the control of the Commonwealth. The whole scope and spirit of the Constitution require that save for the purposes of their domestic policies within their own domains the States shall be blended and absorbed into one political entity. They may still appear in some respects as a body of allied States, but to the Empire of which they form a part and to the world without it they have become and must remain a nation and a Commonwealth one and indivisible.'
As the Prime Minister has said, Australians have a right to expect that the Commonwealth government they elect will set our nation's foreign policy. It is the Commonwealth government's responsibility to ensure that our foreign policy both protects and promotes our national interest.
This bill is designed to give the Australian public confidence that all levels of Australian government are coordinated, aligned and working effectively together for the national interest.
The bill is necessary and it is proportionate.
It is necessary, because it ensures that the Commonwealth government will have full visibility of all arrangements with foreign countries, and can support the states, territories and local government and Australian public universities in undertaking effective, appropriate and informed international engagement overseas.
And it is proportionate to the complex global challenges and risks facing Australia as a nation today.
In the face of an increasingly complex and challenging global environment, in all international engagement, across every level of government and across every country, it is vital that Australia speaks as one nation, with one voice. This bill will ensure that we do so. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Higher Education
Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney) (10:14): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia is in its worst recession in nearly a century;
(b) more than one million Australians can't find work, including nearly 350,000 young people;
(c) now is the worst possible time to make it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university, including more than doubling the cost of degrees for thousands of students;
(d) this week, the government gagged debate on a bill that will make it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university, preventing proper scrutiny; and
(2) invites the Prime Minister to attend the chamber and make a statement on this matter.
Year 12s are going through the year from hell.
Leave not granted.
Ms PLIBERSEK: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sydney from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia is in its worst recession in nearly a century;
(b) more than one million Australians can't find work, including nearly 350,000 young people;
(c) now is the worst possible time to make it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university, including more than doubling the cost of degrees for thousands of students;
(d) this week, the government gagged debate on a bill that will make it harder and more expensive for Australians to go to university, preventing proper scrutiny; and
(2) invites the Prime Minister to attend the chamber and make a statement on this matter.
Year 12s have had the year from hell.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (10:16): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Sydney be no further heard.
The House divided. [10:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:23): Is the motion seconded?
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:23): It is seconded. This government takes hope away from young people by its policy on universities. Every Liberal—
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (10:23): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is the member for Macquarie be no further heard.
The House divided. [10:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:26): The question now is that the motion be disagreed to.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:26): There has never been a government more reluctant to have opposition in parliament, never been a government—
Mr Tudge: I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be put.
The House divided. [10:27]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:29): The question is the motion moved by the member for Sydney be disagreed to.
The House divided. [10:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I am introducing the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2020, (the Consequential Amendments Bill).
The bill gives effect to Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Bill 2020 (the Foreign Relations Bill), which enables the Minister for Foreign Affairs to assess whether arrangements between state and territory governments and foreign governments, and entities related to them, would adversely affect Australia's foreign relations or would be inconsistent with Australia's foreign policy.
The consequential amendments bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 to ensure information under that scheme can be shared for the purposes of the foreign relations bill.
This amendment is important, because there may be occasions of intersection or overlap between arrangements subject to the regulatory frameworks in both the foreign relations bill and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act.
Effective and efficient information sharing between the ministers and the Commonwealth entities administering these two schemes will support a coordinated approach to managing arrangements between the states and territories and foreign governments.
The consequential amendments bill also amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 to list the foreign relations bill as a law to which the act does not apply. This means that the foreign relations bill will not be subject to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act.
This is a necessary amendment, because decisions made under the foreign relations bill will involve complex foreign policy considerations within the exclusive remit of the Commonwealth government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to determine and manage.
It is not appropriate for these decisions to be open to judicial review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act.
Decisions made under the foreign relations bill will be assessed on the basis of Australia's foreign relations and foreign policy, and as such, the opportunity for such decisions to be subject to judicial review should be reduced to preserve the Commonwealth government's prerogative—exercised through the Minister for Foreign Affairs—to determine Australia's foreign relations posture and foreign policy.
Individuals affected by a decision under the foreign relations bill may still seek judicial review by the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court or by the High Court.
This will ensure that affected individuals have an avenue to challenge decisions that affect them.
The consequential amendments bill makes important amendments to support the operation of the Foreign Relations Foreign Relations Bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Aged Care
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (10:34): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) reports in this morning's News Corp newspapers that up to 100 older Australians are being assaulted in residential aged care every week;
(b) that number could be up to ten times higher;
(c) it will have taken more than four years for the government to establish a Serious Incident Response Scheme, after it was recommended by the Australian Law Reform; and
(d) aged care is clearly and unambiguously a Commonwealth responsibility, and the Prime Minister must take urgent action to fix this;
(2) invites the Prime Minister to attend the chamber and make a statement on this matter.
Leave not granted.
Ms COLLINS: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Franklin from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) reports in this morning's News Corp newspapers that up to 100 older Australians are being assaulted in residential aged care every week;
(b) that number could be up to ten times higher;
(c) it will have taken more than four years for the government to establish a Serious Incident Response Scheme, after it was recommended by the Australian Law Reform; and
(d) aged care is clearly and unambiguously a Commonwealth responsibility, and the Prime Minister must take urgent action to fix this;
(2) invites the Prime Minister to attend the chamber and make a statement on this matter.
It is completely unacceptable that this government is failing older Australians and continues to fail—
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (10:36): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Franklin be no further heard.
The House divided. [10:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (10:42): Is the motion seconded?
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (10:42): It is seconded. Fifty thousand Australians—
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland will resume his seat.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (10:42): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER ( 10:44 ): The question is that the member for Shortland be no further heard.
The House divided. [10:44]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER ( 10:45 ): The question now is that the motion be disagreed to.
Mr BURKE ( Watson — Manager of Opposition Business ) ( 10:45 ): He's an arrogant Prime Minister who only wants to hear his own voice. He can't cope with criticism from any—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Mr TUDGE ( Aston — Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) ( 10:45 ): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be now put.
The House divided. [10:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER ( 10:48 ): The question is that the motion moved by the member for Franklin be disagreed to.
The House divided. [10:48]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hawke.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for International Development and the Pacific and Assistant Defence Minister) (10:51): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am very pleased to introduce the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill 2020 in this House.
We have seen through last season's bushfire emergency crisis and through the COVID-19 pandemic that Defence is a critical element of the national response to crises.
This bill will enhance Defence's ability to respond to natural disasters and other civil emergencies.
The amendments in this bill will streamline the process to call out the reserves enabling a more timely Defence contribution to national efforts.
The changes will also provide defence personnel with immunities, similar to that of state and territory emergency services counterparts, when performing their duties in good faith to support disaster preparedness, recovery and response.
And the amendments will ensure that reserve members who serve under a call-out order will receive commensurate superannuation to those reservists who provide the same service on a voluntary basis.
The changes will enable more flexible service options for reservists and will improve consistency in treatment of reserve members, regardless of whether they've volunteered their service or have been called out to serve.
Schedule 1 amends the Defence Act 1903 to streamline the process by which advice is provided to the Governor-General regarding a call-out of the reserves, including for the purposes of responding to natural disasters or emergencies.
The bill will allow the Governor-General to act on the advice of the Minister for Defence, after consultation with the Prime Minister, in all circumstances and not just for reasons of urgency.
This will streamline the process for calling out the reserves enabling a more timely and effective Defence response to national disasters.
Preserving the power of the Governor-General to call out the ADF Reserves will ensure decisions of this magnitude will only be taken when absolutely warranted by the circumstances.
Additionally, the changes provide the Chief of the Defence Force the delegation to determine the nature and period of Reserve service provided under a call-out order.
This will give the Chief of the Defence Force the flexibility needed to integrate the reservists into the overall Defence response.
Minor consequential amendments to the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 will ensure that reserve members will continue to receive the existing protections when called to duty by a call-out order.
Schedule 2 will amend the Defence Act 1903 to provide immunities to those Defence personnel supporting disaster preparedness, recovery and response efforts.
The immunity provision covers assistance directed by the Minister for Defence when the minister is satisfied that:
a. the nature or scale of the natural disaster or other emergency makes it necessary—for the benefit of the nation—for the Commonwealth, through use of the ADF's or department's special capabilities or available resources, to provide the assistance; and/or
b. the assistance is necessary for the protection of Commonwealth agencies, Commonwealth personnel or Commonwealth property.
This will see our Defence personnel being provided with immunity from civil and criminal liability when they are performing their required emergency response duties in good faith, similar to the immunities provided to state and territory emergency services personnel.
Schedule 3 will make amendments to the Military Superannuation and Benefits Act 1991, the Australian Defence Force Superannuation Act 2015 and the Australian Defence Force Cover Act 2015.
These amendments will ensure that reserve members who provide continuous full-time service under a call-out order will receive superannuation and related benefits commensurate with those reservists who provide the same service on a voluntary basis.
These amendments provide greater flexibility in a call-out of our reserves; enable greater consistency in the treatment of our reserves; and ensure that our Defence personnel have all the appropriate legal protections when serving our nation in good faith in the deepest of crises and emergencies.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Economy
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (10:56): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) this week, Australia has plunged into the worst recession in nearly a century;
(b) there are a million Australians unemployed;
(c) in the midst of this crisis, the Prime Minister has deliberately chosen to cut Jobkeeper, Jobseeker, and wages; and
(d) the actions of this Prime Minister will make this recession deeper and longer, and will hurt more Australians; and
(2) invites the Prime Minister to attend the chamber and make a statement on this matter.
Leave not granted.
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Gorton from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) this week, Australia has plunged into the worst recession in nearly a century;
(b) there are a million Australians unemployed;
(c) in the midst of this crisis, the Prime Minister has deliberately chosen to cut Jobkeeper, Jobseeker, and wages; and
(d) the actions of this Prime Minister will make this recession deeper and longer, and will hurt more Australians; and
(2) invites the Prime Minister to attend the chamber and make a statement on this matter.
This is a significant matter. This is a matter of national significance; we need to make sure—
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (10:58): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Gorton be no further heard.
The House divided. [11:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (11:05): Is the motion seconded?
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (11:05): I second the motion. When Australia faces its toughest days, this Prime Minister goes missing.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (11:05): I move:
That the Member be no further heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is the member for Parramatta be no further heard.
The House divided. [11:07]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (11:07): The question now that is the motion be disagreed to.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (11:07): The Prime Minister is arrogant and out of touch and likes the sound of his own voice.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure ) (11:07): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is the motion be put.
The House divided. [11:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (11:11): The question is that the motion be disagreed to.
The House divided. [11:11]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Health Insurance Amendment (Administration) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Ley, for Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (11:13): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to make minor changes to Australian government administrative processes relating to Medicare. These changes do not affect the existing arrangements for patients or health professionals.
Medicare subsidises access to health services by providing a 'benefit' for clinically relevant services performed by an appropriate health professional. Currently, there are almost 6,000 services listed on the Medicare Benefits Schedule. The legal basis for most of the Medicare Benefits Schedule exists in regulations which contain tables of medical, diagnostic imaging and pathology services.
The Health Insurance Act 1973 currently provides that these regulations cease to be in force annually. As a result, they need to be remade each year to ensure that Medicare benefits can continue to be available to patients.
The annual sunset period has been in the actsince the inception of Medicare and was used to provide an up-to-date record of Medicare items each year. This process is now unnecessary, as the Legislation Act 2003 requires compilations of all legislative instruments to be published on the Federal Register of Legislation.
The bill removes the annual sunset period to reduce unnecessary administrative work and mitigate the risk that an error during the remake process could affect patient entitlements to benefits under Medicare.
The bill also removes several redundant provisions in the act which are no longer required. This includes removing references to the establishment and operation of the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee which has not been active for more than 20 years, removing calculations relating to Medicare benefits which are no longer used, and removing references to historical requirements for optometrists to reflect modern administrative arrangements.
To conclude, the bill makes minor administrative changes to improve the operation of the Health Insurance Act 1973. The bill does not affect which services are available on the Medicare Benefits Schedule, who is entitled to Medicare benefits, or the amount of Medicare benefits. I commend the bill to the House.
(Quorum formed)
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity Committee
Report
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (11:18): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, I present the following reports: Examination of the annual report of the Integrity Commissioner 2018-19and Report on the visit to New Zealand and Vanuatu, December 2019.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr CONAGHAN: The committee thanks the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, ACLEI, for a comprehensive report and acknowledges its significant progress in managing its increasing workload, including through the discontinuation of older investigations.
To enhance the transparency of its investigations that are discontinued under section 42 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, the committee has recommended that ACLEI consider how it can report on the reasons investigations have been discontinued in future annual reports. The committee is satisfied ACLEI performed strongly against its five performance criteria for 2018-19. ACLEI delivered positive investigative and operational results, including five prosecutions, all resulting in convictions. The committee also acknowledges ACLEI's work to integrate corruption prevention capabilities into investigations, allowing for timely advice to be provided to agencies about identified threats.
Finally, I thank the newly-appointed Integrity Commissioner, Ms Jaala Hinchcliffe, and the staff of ACLEI for their cooperation and engagement with the committee.
I also present the committee's report on its delegation visit to New Zealand and Vanuatu in December 2019. I had the pleasure of travelling as a member of the delegation, which provided an opportunity to consider issues relevant to the committee's ongoing inquiry into the integrity of Australia's border arrangements. The delegation also allowed the committee to better understand the integrity frameworks more broadly in New Zealand and Vanuatu and how they might be relevant for Australia.
Of particular interest to the delegation was looking into anti-corruption measures used by our border agencies in nearby jurisdictions with which Australia has a close association as our partners in addressing transnational crime and corruption. This was of particular importance as ACLEI has reported that a number of its investigations now involve international operations.
The delegation would like to thank the government and the parliament of Vanuatu for the welcome to their beautiful country and their openness to our discussions. The delegation would also like to thank the government and the parliament of New Zealand, who facilitated a range of productive and highly informative discussions with law enforcement, anti-corruption and integrity-monitoring agencies. Accordingly, I present both reports to the House. Thank you.
(Quorum formed)
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (11:25): The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 amends the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, known as the EPBC Act, which is the primary piece of Commonwealth environmental legislation. The EPBC Act contains a statutory requirement to review the operation of the act every 10 years. The second of those 10-yearly reviews is presently underway. The government appointed Professor Graeme Samuel AC, one of Australia's most experienced regulators, to lead that review.
I'd hoped to be here today considering legislation that had been brought forward in good faith consistent with that interim review, that was serious and that had meaningful environmental protections in it, but I regret to say that that is not the case. So I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"The House declines to give the bill a second reading as it is of the opinion that the outdated proposals from the Government ignore recommendations from the Samuel Review and fail to protect the environment, create jobs and provide certainty for business".
On 20 July 2020 the government made public Professor Samuel's interim report. The final report is due in October 2020. The interim report sounded a clarion call about the state of the environment. It said:
The environment and our iconic places are in decline and under increasing threat. The EPBC Act does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect and conserve nationally important environmental matters. It is not fit for current or future environmental challenges.
To put that in perspective, I want to talk to you about this seven-year-old Liberal government's failures to protect the environment and conserve biodiversity. Professor Samuel's interim report summarises some alarming examples of decline derived from the 2016 State of the environment report and expert submissions to the EPBC review. As to threatened species and biodiversity, the interim report states:
Australia is losing biodiversity at an alarming rate and has one of the highest rates of extinction in the world. More than 10% of Australia's land mammals are now extinct, and another 21% are threatened and declining. Populations of threatened birds, plants, fish and invertebrates are also continuing to decrease, and the list of threatened species is growing. Although there is evidence of population increases where targeted management actions are undertaken (such as controlling or excluding feral animals or implementing ecological fire management techniques), these are exceptions rather than a broad trend.
Since the EPBC Act was introduced, the threat status of species has deteriorated. Approximately 4 times more species have been listed as threatened than those that have shown an improvement. Over its 20-year operation, only 13 animal species have been removed from the Act's threatened species lists, and only one of these … is generally considered a case of genuine improvement.
That's a pretty sad report of the state of affairs under this current legislation. As to protected areas, the interim report states:
The area of Australia that is protected from competing land uses, for example through national parks, marine reserves and Indigenous Protected Areas, has expanded. However, not all ecosystems or habitats are well represented, and their management is not delivering strong outcomes for threatened species. Consideration of future scenarios indicates that the reserve system is unlikely to provide adequate protection for species and communities in the face of future pressures such as climate change.
As to oceans and marine environments, the interim report states:
Aspects of Australia's marine environment are in good condition and there have been some management successes, but our oceans face significant current and future threats from climate change and human activity.
It goes on to point out:
… submissions pointed to recent evidence of steep declines in habitats across Australia's marine ecosystems—including coral reefs in the Great Barrier Reef, saltmarshes on the east coast, mangroves in northern Australia, and kelp forests in Tasmania.
The 2016 State of the environment report predicted that under a business-as-usual approach—that is, assuming current trends continued and policies or management arrangements were not changed significantly—we would see ecosystem changes including declining quality of ecosystems; continued loss of biodiversity, including habitat loss and extinction of many species of plants and animals; ongoing clearing of native vegetation; changes to the marine environment, including ocean acidification and others; changes to the distribution of species and ecological communities; increased pollution of marine and coastal areas from plastics, with greater impacts on species that could be entangled in the debris; continued or increased erosion in some coastal locations; and modification and loss of foreshore and near-shore shallow water habitats.
These are bleak stories, but even bleaker is the Australian emotional response to some of the loss that we have seen. It seems almost like a long time ago now, but it was not a long time ago that we had the bushfires over the summer. It was only months ago. Burned into the Australian psyche, as if by those bushfires, are the images that we saw coming out of the coverage: the woman who took off her shirt to try to rescue a koala; the animals with missing paws, with terrible burns; and the impact on threatened species, to the extent that there were recent reports that up to three billion animals were killed or displaced in just last summer's bushfires. Australians are deeply distressed—I've had people in tears on my phone to my office, and I know other members have had the same thing—by the damage to the environment and to our species wrought by those terrible bushfires.
Taking into account the evidence and taking into account the national sentiment, it is clear that Australia needs to do more to protect our natural environment and conserve biodiversity. At the same time, the environment law has a significant impact on whether major projects and other developments can go ahead and, if so, under what conditions. As well as having significant consequences for the environment, this has consequences for jobs and investment. Projects and developments that are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance would generally require environmental assessment and approval from the Commonwealth environment minister because of the operation of the EPBC Act.
You could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the government's woeful record on environmental protection and biodiversity conservation has come about because they've been too focused on administering the projects approvals aspect of the law, but that's not what is going on. The fact is Australia has an environmental crisis and a jobs crisis, and the government are failing woefully on both counts. They're both failing to protect the environment and managing to inject massive unnecessary delays, as well as errors and mismanagement, into the process. The government cut around 40 per cent of the funding to the environment department, and now the Australian people and Australian industry are reaping what this seven-year-old government has sown. Whenever an acceptable project is delayed because of this government's cuts and incompetence or whenever the government gets a decision wrong it delays jobs and causes investment uncertainty.
Recently, we got a very clear picture of just how badly this government's cuts and incompetence have stuffed up environmental decision-making. In June 2020 the Australian National Audit Office released its report Referrals, assessments and approvals of controlled actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It's got a pretty bland title, but I'll tell you what wasn't bland: the content of that report. This is an uncharacteristically blunt report from an audit office. It's findings reinforced what Labor has been hearing from industry—and I'm sure the government's been hearing this as well—that the government's funding cuts have been putting real pressure on decision-making and have given rise to serious delays. The audit report showed there'd been a 510 per cent blowout in project approval delays. It showed that since 2014 there'd been an explosion in approval delays beyond the statutory time frames from 19 to 116 days. And, in the 2018-19 financial year, 95 per cent of all Morrison government key decisions on major projects were late. Of those key decisions about assessments and about approvals, 95 per cent were late beyond the statutory time frames in that financial year. The audit report also found that 79 per cent of approval decisions were affected by error or noncompliance.
Over the time the government has been in office, the total number of decisions has been going backwards. It's not as if the environmental laws have become more strict or protective. It's very clear the government's cuts and incompetency are the source of these delays. When the Morrison government use the phrase 'green tape', it appears they are talking about the delays that they have caused. I prefer to think of the delays as caused by blue tape—Liberal Party cuts and incompetence, not environmental protections, which tie up decision-making unnecessarily.
The government have tacitly admitted that their cuts are the source of these problems. Late last year they injected some funding to try to reduce the delays. But why on earth did they wait until their seventh year in government to start to clean up the mess that they had made—to try and stem some of the bleeding? What made them think in the first place that they could cut 40 per cent of the environment department's funding without causing significant harm to the environment, to jobs and to investment? Unfortunately, what we're seeing here is straight from the Liberal Party playbook: gut the Public Service, run them into the ground and then use their worsened performance to justify further cuts or outsourcing or, in this case, to attempt to abrogate responsibility entirely. But it doesn't have to be this way.
The Samuel review process is providing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reform the environmental laws in a way that provides a win-win outcome, with both much-improved environmental protection and more support for jobs creation and investment. Labor doesn't believe that those two objectives are inconsistent with each other. They're not in opposition to each other. With goodwill, with cooperation and with negotiation, it is not beyond the wit and wisdom of Australian parliamentarians, experts, industry leaders, traditional owners, environmentalists and other community leaders to come up with a way forward together.
As I've said, in the course of his review, Professor Samuel has issued an interim report which was provided to the government and ultimately made public. That report was made public on 20 July 2020, though the government had it for some time before that. The report proposes three phases of reform. The first phase was proposed to commence immediately before the final report is issued. The interim report described the first phase as follows:
Phase 1 should deliver urgent, long-overdue changes to the Act and take the steps needed to build the core foundations for more complex reform. There is no reason to wait to commence this phase.
The interim report elaborated on phase 1 as follows:
The initial phase of reform should fix long-known issues with the EPBC Act within its current construct and set the base for key reform foundations that can be built on and improved over time. The 5 areas of focus for phase 1 reforms are:
Reduce points of clear duplication, inconsistencies, gaps and conflicts in the Act.
Issue Interim National Environmental Standards to set clear national environmental outcomes against which decisions are made.
Improve the durability of devolved decision-making, to deliver efficiencies in development assessments and approvals, where other regulators can demonstrate they can meet Interim National Environmental Standards.
Implement early steps and key foundations to improve trust and transparency in the Act, including publishing all decision materials related to approval decisions.
Legislate a complete set of monitoring, compliance, enforcement and assurance tools across the Act.
It is important to note all the elements of this phase were proposed by Professor Samuel to occur together. When the report was released he said:
The Review encourages consideration of the overall reform direction proposed, rather than its component parts.
Let me therefore talk briefly about all of those elements together from phase 1, as he describes it. The reference to reducing points of clear duplication, inconsistencies, gaps and conflicts in the act is about the drafting and the architecture of the existing legislation. The examples given are things like: defining terms that the review believes need to be clearer, like 'significant' or 'action' or 'continuing use'; reordering the position so it's in a more logical order, for example, by having all the enforcement provisions together rather than distributed through the act; and making the act's provisions less 'verbose' to make them easier to read. These are all examples that I've taken from the interim report. That's what he's referring to in that point.
As to the interim national environmental standards, Professor Samuel has said:
The development of National Environment Standards should be a priority reform measure. Interim Standards could be developed immediately, followed by an iterative development process as more sophisticated data becomes accessible. Standards should focus on detailed prescription of outcomes, not process.
He explained why he thought this was important. He said:
National Environmental Standards will mean that the community and business can know what to expect. Standards support clear and consistent decisions, regardless of who makes them. Where states and territories can demonstrate their systems can deliver environmental outcomes consistent with the Standards, responsibilities should be devolved, providing faster and lower cost development assessments and approvals.
This is what he is saying about these standards and why they're important. At the time, in July, when this was released, the minister said that the government would introduce strong, rigorous environmental standards that had 'buy-in across the board' at the same time as introducing proposed legislative change. That hasn't happened.
The proposed national environmental standards, from the report—these are not my words; I'm describing what the report says—are described as the foundation, or the centrepiece; he uses both those terms. They are the foundation on which the other reforms are proposed to be built. So there is this idea that the government has in this bill, and the idea more broadly—Professor Samuel hasn't, but the government has—of devolving authority to the states. But Professor Samuel's model hinges entirely not just on whether there are some standards in existence, which there don't seem to be yet, but also on the content of them—whether they're good enough, whether they're fit for purpose and whether they're strong enough. He makes it really clear that he doesn't want to see negotiation on a state-by-state basis which leads to a lowest-common-denominator approach. He wants to see national standards that they have to meet.
The devolution proposal which is made here also makes this clear; it's contingent on creating and maintaining trust. That takes us to the other two elements of his proposed phase 1 reforms. On July 20 he said:
Community trust in the EPBC Act and its administration is low.
That's true; we know that. It's very clear. He went on:
To build confidence, the Interim Report proposes that an independent cop on the beat is required to deliver rigorous, transparent compliance and enforcement.
So the interim report sets out a clear pathway for reform. The review is currently convening groups of stakeholders and experts to do that work which is necessary to give effect to it—to draft those proposed interim national standards.
This has given the Morrison government a choice. They could work with the reviewer, the stakeholders and the experts and then propose serious reforms consistent with the Samuel review for this parliament to consider. And I say 'consider'; there are no guarantees in this, but at least a serious set of reforms with buy-in across the board could be considered properly. On the other hand, they could act in a way that is nakedly political and try to ram through something that is completely unacceptable and completely inconsistent with the Samuel review to try to create division.
Ms Swanson: So did they take (a), or (b) they—
Ms BUTLER: I wish they did take (a), member for Paterson! I should say that taking the latter course, the nakedly political route, has the potential to derail the entire process. I think it's really regrettable if that's what they're doing. But that is what they're doing; I regret to say that they're taking the nakedly political route. The bill we're debating today is an attempt to reanimate the corpse of some failed Abbott-era legislation. It's Abbott 2.0.
By the way, this is something that Professor Samuel explicitly warned against in the interim report:
In 2014 the then Australian Government was unable to secure the necessary parliamentary support for the legislative changes required. There was considerable community and stakeholder concern that environmental outcomes were not clearly defined and the states and territories would not be able to uphold the national interest in protecting the environment. A lack of clear environmental (as opposed to process) standards fuelled political differences at the time.
This community concern remains. Submissions to the Review highlighted ongoing concern about the adequacy of state and territory laws, their ability to manage conflicts of interest, and increased environmental risks if the Commonwealth steps away.
It's incredibly disappointing that the government has disregarded the independent reviewer's report in this way. They're well aware that the bill they're now pursuing is unacceptable and is a model that has already been rejected by this parliament.
It didn't have to be this way, as I said. The conditions for reform that the government faces are very favourable. They're in majority government. When the last 10-yearly review was on, Labor was in minority government. This government has the benefit of a collaborative opposition that has expressed, throughout this period, our intention to be cooperative—to consider proposals in good faith. And I've made that point continuously since the interim report was released.
In contrast, when the last 10-yearly report was released, we had a Tony Abbott led opposition, completely obstructive—perhaps the most obstructive in the history of federation—plus a Greens crossbench that had very recently, at that time, shown its unwillingness to do the right thing and instead its preparedness to put politics ahead of the national interest by voting with the Liberals against action on climate change. And, of course, at the time, as Professor Samuel has made clear in his report, last time there was an attempt to undertake reforms of this nature, there were deep community and stakeholder concerns.
What does this government have now? What are the conditions for reform? They've got everyone! Get this: they've got everyone, from the Minerals Council to the BCA to the Farmers Federation to the Australian Conservation Foundation to the Humane Society; they've got the Wilderness Society; they've got WWF; they've got traditional owners; they've got academics; they've got environmental law experts—all making a contribution to this process that Professor Graeme Samuel is undertaking. And they've got Professor Samuel himself, one of, as I said, the nation's most experienced regulators, who is working very hard. Now I don't know if that's going to yield an outcome. But why don't we see if it does? Why don't we see—because everybody wants durability of reform, right? That's what industry wants. That's what everybody wants. They want something that, instead of the chopping and changing and uncertainty, can get broad support and buy-in. And the buy-in point is a point that the minister made when she released the report publicly. So, if we can get that, we have such an opportunity here, because these laws are not up to scratch.
As I've said, we have made very clear that we're open to considering anything serious the government wants to put up that's consistent with the Samuel review. For example, we support the introduction of strong national environmental standards. We want them to be properly made. We want them underpinned by legislation. We've also called for a cop on the beat, which Professor Samuel has recommended.
But why would we vote for the Abbott 2.0 bill? Absolute state control over environmental decision-making would have seen logging in the Daintree, drilling on the reef and the damming of the Franklin. It took Labor in government federally to put a stop to this environmental destruction that was intended to occur. With our natural environment—a driver of tens of thousands of jobs—under greater pressure than ever, the Australian people don't want to see the Commonwealth getting out of the business of protecting the environment, and Professor Samuel's report makes it clear that the Commonwealth should not do so. So why would we commit to supporting the Abbott 2.0 model? We would want to see, from the government, something serious, and of course, as they well know, and as Professor Samuel has said, there has to be a clear role for the Commonwealth under that model.
But the first step is that the interim national environmental standards should be drafted and made public. We should not be asked to vote—as we are being today—on legislative change to support devolution to the other jurisdictions before seeing the content and the detail of the standards that are intended to apply from day one. We think that Graeme Samuel's process is a good opportunity to create standards that have, as the minister said, buy-in. She should see what proposed national environmental standards, if any, that process yields, because agreed standards will, as I said, be much more durable than standards written exclusively by the government and simply imposed in a top-down way. The minister should also give some thought to any proposed regulation-making power, including how to make sure it properly underpins the standards proposed by the review and how it might make sure that those future iterations of the standards do not provide lesser levels of protection than the ones that apply initially.
I should note—and I do want to draw this out and highlight it—that Professor Samuel also talks extensively in the report about Indigenous engagement and cultural heritage and other matters relating to traditional owners. We would hope that these issues would feature very prominently in the work that's being done in relation to drafting standards. I think that that's something that everybody would agree on—that we do want to see strong improvements in making sure that traditional owners are not just consulted but have their authority and their experience properly respected and have the genuine opportunity to be a part of the future of protection for cultural heritage but also engagement in environmental decision-making. In that connection, I might take the opportunity to note that Australians were horrified by the recent destruction at Juukan Gorge, and I encourage all jurisdictions to work together with traditional owners to ensure similar destruction cannot occur in the future.
Turning to the issue of compliance and assurance more broadly, including the cop on the beat that Professor Samuel has recommended, let me make some observations. It is clear that compliance and enforcement are a mess under the Morrison Liberal-National government. Australians deserve to have confidence in how our environment is being managed. We've called on the Morrison government to establish an independent compliance watchdog with teeth that is genuinely independent and, I might add, we'd also want to see from the government what they intend to do about ensuring ongoing parliamentary scrutiny.
Minister Taylor's 'Grassgate' scandal, where he got the now Treasurer to set up a meeting about the environment issue that affected value of his land, is a good example of why an independent watchdog is needed. There's no point in having a toothless watchdog. If you want to see what's happened when watchdogs go wrong, just take a look at the interim inspector-general of the Murray-Darling Basin—I'm talking about the position, not the holder of it. That position was announced on 1 August last year with much fanfare: 'We're going to create an inspector-general position. It'll be interim at first, but we'll rapidly get together some legislation to give it a statutory basis and proper powers so it can do its job to be a good strong watchdog with teeth. The states are all going to sign up to it, and it's all going to be great.' And here we are a year later, and there's still no statutory basis—in fact it's more than a year later—it's still an interim position with no statutory powers and, from all reports, it's not necessarily getting willing compliance from the states. That's not the fault of the incumbent in the position; it's the fault of the government that created the position and then did not properly empower it. It's a good example as well of government talking a big game on integrity and failing on it, because when they announced the position they said it would be able to refer matters to the Commonwealth integrity commission, a body that still does not exist. The government, in dealing with these standards, should indicate how it intends to secure the states' and territories' willing compliance in relation to any proposed compliance or assurance measures that it puts around environmental standards more broadly.
I also want to make a point about resourcing. Given the government's track record of cutting 40 per cent of the environment department's funding, I expect that this parliament will probably want to understand how Australians could be confident that any reforms would be properly resourced, especially since the government has made clear that no additional support would be provided to the states and territories in the event devolution was to occur. It's a pretty big ask for them. 'You guys do all the work. We won't give you any extra money'—that's the position of the government at this stage. I think, after we've seen the 40 per cent funding cuts and the consequences of those, people would want to know how any compliance or assurance mechanisms or broader reforms would be financed into the future.
Also, as Australians, I think we want reassurance that the unnecessary delays—and I'm talking about the delays caused by cuts and incompetence—could be brought to an end. These remarks are not intended to provide the government with a blank cheque and nor are they intended to be a blueprint for reform or a statement of our future position. We're not in government, and it's up to the government to draft and propose any laws and supporting instruments. As I said, it's not a commitment to vote for future legislation sight unseen. All I'm committing to is nothing more and nothing less than a proper serious, good-faith consideration of anything that the government is willing to put forward that is also serious and consistent with the EPBC review.
I've consistently said since the interim report was released that we would give it proper and sober consideration without cherry-picking. That position stands in contrast, unfortunately, with the government's approach. So Labor will oppose the Morrison government's attempt to rehash former Prime Minister Abbott's failed 2014 environment bill which would harm Australia's natural environment and put jobs and investment at risk. This bill would see more major project delays, more investment uncertainty, more conflict, less trust in decisions and worse outcomes for our natural environment. There are no national environmental standards in this bill, and none have been published, despite them being the foundation and the centrepiece of Professor Graeme Samuel's proposed reforms. With no proposed standards, no independent cop on the beat and no additional funding for the states, despite the extra responsibility, it's just a bill designed for political conflict.
When presented with an opportunity to provide more certainty for jobs and investment in our environment, Scott Morrison chose conflict. If he was serious about securing broad support and durable reform, he would get rid of this bill, sit down at the table, stop breaking promises on national standards and actually work together with stakeholders and the community to deliver something with durability and certainty.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Swanson: It is. I reserve my right to speak.
(Quorum formed)
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (11:58): When you think of Australia's most iconic natural places, overwhelmingly they've been protected under Commonwealth laws: Kakadu National Park, the Daintree, the Franklin, the Great Barrier Reef. All of those iconic places that are so important to our natural environment—but which also, of course, have become economic assets in terms of the tourism sector creating jobs—have been protected by the Commonwealth, usually in opposition to respective state governments of different political persuasions. It is, indeed, a powerful reminder that government can make good and lasting change if they have a long-term vision for the nation and not just a focus on themselves in the here and now. In the later discussions I had with the great Bob Hawke, he would always go through his environmental record, which he was so proud of, in the Hawke Labor government. It is a powerful reminder that what those opposite propose is actually contrary to the national interest, contrary to the protection of our natural environment, contrary to the creation of jobs and contrary to economic growth.
We need environmental laws in this nation which protect our natural surroundings and attract investment. What that means is that we need to have clear rules of engagement for business and we need fast, simple processes. It's very clear that, if you have a proposal for an investment, what you need to do is to have proper environmental assessments that are rigorous but that don't create unnecessary delay, because time is money when it comes to investment. But you need to make sure that there's confidence from the public in those processes, and what's being proposed by this government will undermine confidence in the system. What's being proposed are Abbott-era laws which were rejected in 2014 and should be rejected in 2020.
The minister claims that her amendments are 'supported by the directions outlined in the interim report carried out by Professor Graeme Samuel this year'. It's certainly true that Professor Samuel has described the EPBC Act as 'ineffective'. You certainly have no argument from this side of the House that we could look at improvements to the act. But this isn't about improving the act. This isn't about progress. This is about looking backwards. It's very disrespectful as well, I believe, that this very fine Australian, Graeme Samuel—someone who's distinguished and whom I've worked with in a range of ways over many years—has produced this report and it's being trashed and not really looked at.
It's not true that Professor Samuel thought the solution was for the federal government to walk away from its responsibilities to approve or refuse development applications which may have significant environmental impacts. Indeed, Professor Samuel recommended that the government introduce 'granular and measurable' national environmental standards which would be the foundation of new environmental laws. He recommended that there be a development and accreditation process for states and territories to be able to grant environmental approvals, in some cases, and in accordance with the national environmental standards. He recommended the establishment of an independent cop on the beat to develop national environmental standards and ensure the rules aren't being broken. He didn't say that the Commonwealth should simply pass the buck and hand over environmental approvals to states without any rules and without any scrutiny. In fact, he warned against this very approach that the government is taking. He said there was significant concern about the ability of states and territories to uphold the national interest in making these decisions, when the Abbott government tried this in 2014.
When Professor Samuel's interim report was released, the minister promised national environmental standards would be legislated at the same time as greater powers were given to the states—standards that Graeme Samuel describes as the foundation of the reforms that he's proposed. The government has legislation but hasn't even bothered to draft any national standards. All they've done is try to hand over responsibility for environmental approvals to the state and territories. It's a bit like their national cabinet, which isn't national and isn't a cabinet. They want to take responsibility for anything good that happens, but anything else is someone else's fault. They just hand over their responsibility to the states and territories and then complain after the event.
What we need is national environmental standards that don't allow for complaint after mistakes have been made but fix things in advance, because, if you're complaining, by definition it's too late. And we saw that, tragically, recently in Western Australia, where Indigenous heritage was destroyed in such a graphic way. Once it's done, it's done. Once there's drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, it's done. Once the Franklin stops flowing, it can't be restarted. Once the Daintree is destroyed, you can't remake it. You can't fix what our natural environment takes tens of thousands of years, and sometimes millions of years, to produce. That's why we need to get it right. That's why the responsibility on these issues is so important, because it goes beyond our time in this place; it goes beyond our time on this earth. What we do in this place makes a difference for a long period of time.
Key to the Samuel review interim report was a recommendation for an independent regulator to develop these standards and to ensure compliance. The report states that a regulator should not be subject to actual or implied direction from the Commonwealth minister. That's not a problem, because the regulator isn't subject to any direction, given it doesn't exist under this legislation. States can approve development applications, but there are no rules on what can or can't be approved, there is no scope for enforcing those rules if they are ever developed and there is no compliance monitoring. Samuel also highlighted the failure of the EPBC Act to recognise and value Indigenous knowledge and views, and recommended the national environmental standards include a specific standard on best practice Indigenous engagement. The legislation ignores that too.
Under the government's amendments, on matters of national significance, development approvals will be made by states and territories instead of the federal government. We should be clear about what that means. There are eight matters of national environmental significance currently protected by the EPBC Act. Samuel recommended strengthening protections for them. They are: World Heritage properties, like Kakadu; national heritage places, like Fraser Island; wetlands of international importance, like the Coorong and its Lower Lakes; migratory species protected under international agreements, like the humpback whale; listed threatened species, like the Leadbeater's possum; Commonwealth marine areas, like those around Lord Howe Island; the magnificent Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and nuclear actions, including uranium mines. We have international agreements on these areas. We effectively agree that any development will be consistent with principles to protect the environment covered under these categories. That's an important responsibility to the international community, but we have a greater one, and that's to future generations. That's to our kids and our grandkids to come, for some of us, we hope—not too soon! We believe that, when we look at those issues, we do understand how significant it is.
In conclusion, let's have a look at what the problems have been with the EPBC Act and some of its functions, because these amendments won't fix any of them. They won't create more jobs. They won't approve appropriate developments more quickly or give inappropriate ones a quick refusal so they can move on. They won't create the certainty that's needed to drive greater investment. This government knows that that's the case.
Under this government, approval delays for development projects have blown out by more than 500 per cent. In 79 per cent of environmental decisions, they've made an error, and 95 per cent of decisions are actually late. It's no coincidence that they've cut the environment department budget by 40 per cent. So the government have made cuts to the department, and the assessments aren't taking place in a timely manner, with a blowout by more than 500 per cent, but their solution isn't to fix what's gone wrong on their watch; their solution is to just hand it over to someone else—to the states and territories.
As well, under this proposal, companies wanting to get approval for developments will have to navigate 16 different sets of rules across the country. It will make the processes more complex, when what we need is more simplicity. It will add to delays, not reduce them. It will add to the complexity, not simplify it. And it will be not only a bad outcome for all those seeking to do business but also a bad outcome for the environment.
I was proud to be the shadow environment minister some time ago in this place. At that time, I spoke about Australia facing an extinction crisis. That crisis has got worse. It has got worse, not better. Climate change is having a dramatic effect on our flora and our fauna. I said then that we were going backwards. Habitat was being lost. Species were disappearing. But what we're seeing is in fact an extinction crisis in this nation. It's something that should be of great concern to us, and I know Australians are concerned about these issues. You only have to look at koalas and the impact that the bushfires had on them. But something else happened then too, which is that, internationally, there were more funds raised to protect koalas in Australia than were raised to protect people. That's not to say that, internationally, people weren't concerned about the impact the bushfires had on Australians. But what it did signify was how much our great nation is identified with our natural assets, be they physical, in the form of these places that we need to protect, or be they natural, as in our fauna—our koalas, our kangaroos—and our flora that make this place special on earth. We have an extraordinary natural environment that we need to cherish, value and protect.
This legislation is bad legislation. Labor will be opposing it, and we're right to do so. The government should go back, actually have a look at what Graeme Samuel has said and go back to the drawing board if they are at all serious.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (12:13): The amendment moved by the member for Griffith to the motion for the second reading of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020—and I thank her for her thoughtful and professional consideration of the Samuel review—was seconded by the member for Paterson. I take this opportunity to wish the member for Paterson a very happy birthday for today. It's a shame we have her in here, working so hard again, on such a momentous occasion, but she had a lovely bit of cake earlier with some friends on this side and I hope the rest of the day is nice for her.
The Samuel review makes one point absolutely clear, and that is that the EPBC Act, as it stands, is serving neither the natural environment nor industry—neither the future of what really makes Australia a beautiful place nor the industry and jobs that are so important and flow from a timely, effective and efficient approvals process.
An effective EPBC Act is one which strikes the right balance between the protection of our natural environment and the need to encourage economic growth and sustainable jobs. The report by Graeme Samuel which has been referenced so often in this debate today is an interim one and an important one. We will have the final report on this subject in October this year, I trust. So it makes no sense to be bringing this legislation forward at this point in time. Nor has the government been able to mount a coherent case for bringing this legislation forward. On that basis, the opposition will be rejecting it.
No-one will be surprised to learn that the interim report has found that EPBC Act terminology is not clear and concise and is driving confusion and therefore suboptimal outcomes. Nor will they be surprised that the review describes the EPBC Act as archaic—that's why it was important that this review be undertaken. The review says the interrelationships between the EPBC Act and other laws are not clear, and I think most would agree. Every member in this place will surely agree with the review's ambition to restructure and simplify the EPBC Act, but surely no member wants to rush that process and therefore risk getting it wrong. As the Commonwealth's key instrument for environmental oversight and protection, it's too important an act to be rushed, and the consequences of getting it wrong are far too great. It is clear that inadequate departmental resourcing and state-Commonwealth duplication are failing both the environment and our business community. Our biodiversity continues to deteriorate, and the Minerals Council have suggested that delays on greenfields projects can cost an applicant up to $46 million every month. Further, big resources approvals critical to the Australian economy and to sustainable jobs are taking three years on average. That is, of course, in addition to the state based processes.
The call for strong legislated national environmental standards is a welcome one, and I don't think anyone in this place would disagree. The recommendation for devolution to the states is of course more controversial and should be subject to extensive parliamentary and community scrutiny and discussion—again, not a rushed process. Certainly there can be no progress on that front without agreed environmental standards. Devolution is not an evil. No-one is arguing that. Bilaterals make sense. I know the Western Australian government, for example, is very keen on further progressing bilateral agreements. In fact, devolution looks like the most obvious path to ridding ourselves of unnecessary duplication. For that proposal to secure any community support, and indeed broad-ranging support in this place—and we need broad-ranging support in this place, because this is an act which, like any act of parliament, is subject to regular amendment—we need to go on this journey together and get this right together. Then industry will have certainty and people can have confidence in the instrument which protects our natural environment. Building that consensus will not be easy, but it will be made easier if the government is serious about meaningful reform rather than looking for an opportunity to play politics with this very, very important protection for our natural environment. Already the review has found that neither the community nor industry have any trust in the EPBC Act and its processes. That's why independent serious oversight will be necessary, but we have to fix that mistrust. We can't put forward an effective regime if neither industry nor the broader community trust the processes or the legislative backing for those processes. I hope the interim review's focus on legal standing and review will be part of that sensible conversation. I think most people working in industry have at least a perception of ongoing, almost infinite, legal processes getting in the way of sensible development. So we must fix any flaws but also address that perception. We have to have a serious debate about that. We have to have a serious review and look at those frustrations.
With respect to the standing provisions—that is, those which give legal standing to those who are not directly affected by a project—the interim review 'is not yet convinced that extended standings should be curtailed'. It is not convinced that that part of the system is broken. I know that this is not a final conclusion on the review's position, but I think most people will be surprised by that. And I welcome that, because it's one area where I don't think it will be necessary to have a protracted debate. But we'll see what the final report says. Further, the interim report says:
Broad standing remains an important feature of environmental legislation, particularly given the presence of collective harm resulting from damage to environmental or heritage values.
What Graeme Samuel is saying is that we all have a stake in this—where we are directly affected by living close to the project, for example. I think we all do have a stake in this, and I welcome the review's thoughts. The review further points out that the courts already have a capacity to weed out unnecessary and vexatious litigation. That is noted. That includes, of course, cases where the applicant really has no prospect of success. I look forward to the final report and Graeme Samuel's final conclusions on that. The interim report says:
It may though be beneficial for the EPBC Act to require an applicant seeking to rely on the extended standing provisions to demonstrate that they have an arguable case, or that the case raises matters of exceptional public importance before the matter can proceed.
So it is obvious that Graeme Samuel has left his mind open to further thinking on the area of what some might describe as vexatious claims et cetera, which we do know can be problematic for industry and for those workers who rely on it. He further notes:
Full merits review is not advised. Opening decisions on appeal or review to the admission of new documentation or materials for consideration delays decisions without necessarily improving outcomes. It also promotes forum shopping.
I'm very pleased that he is devoting a lot of his time to thinking about these issues.
I trust that environmental activists, who will be celebrating the review's conclusion that the act is not serving the natural environment, will be just as open-minded to all those things the report has identified as being frustrating for investors and business and all those people who rely on that investment. We cannot be cherrypicking the final report when it comes down. If we want to celebrate the flaws on the environmental side, we've also got to take seriously the identification of those matters that are standing in the way of investment. I think that will be critically important. More generally, I trust that they will turn their minds to the fact that the review does conclude—in an interim way, I suppose—that the act is not supporting investment and jobs.
The bill before the House is premature. The government hasn't made the case for the substantive matters in it, nor the timing. That's why the opposition will be rejecting it, and that's why I'm here standing in support of the member for Griffith. If we are going to be successful again, we need to go on this journey together and do it in a most sensible way.
Industries like the resources sector aren't the only groups in this country that will be watching this debate very carefully. So too will those in agriculture, the other area for which I have responsibility in this place. Often, the conflicts are very similar and we need to be mindful of the needs of those investing and working in the agriculture sector, as well. We also need to look again at the opportunities for the agriculture sector. No-one benefits more from sound environmental planning and regulation than those who work our land. They are the people who are being challenged by climate change, more than anyone else. In many senses, given productivity has been flatlining for 10 years, they are probably best placed to use the sensible things we can do here to lift productivity and therefore profitability. Obviously, soil health is chief and key among them.
In March 2019 the agriculture minister announced at the ABARES conference—finally; we dragged him screaming to this—that the government would progress a stewardship package to deal with biodiversity policy. This is now almost seven years on. The government's been very slow getting there. The problem, though, is that we still haven't seen any benefits from that March 2019 announcement, and we are now told that the two key programs being funded under that $34 million package will not commence until 2021. We haven't been given a month in 2020-21, so it may be that, from the announcement to even the beginning of the implementation of this scheme, the period could be 2½ years. This is another example of a government that loves an announcement but is very poor on the follow-through.
I note that a good chunk of that money has gone to the National Farmers Federation to develop some measures for certification of soil. I might have that wrong—I don't have the note in front of me. That would be a wonderful thing if it is happening. But, of course, the NFF, and I say this most respectfully, doesn't have any expertise to do that certification work, so naturally it will be contracting that work out, I would expect—in part to the ANU and, I have no doubt, to others. It makes us wonder in this place how long it will be, after seven years under this government, before we even have a proposal to help farmers improve their soil health, store more carbon, enter that carbon market, which they are not really able to do under this government. Technically, they will say that the opportunity is there. But ask a farmer about the challenge of participating in that carbon market and you will get a very interesting answer. I see the minister at the table smiling in acknowledgement and recognition, I think, of the point I am making.
So, there are some good things we can do for our farmers while also doing good things for our natural environment. The opportunity is there and, just like the Samuel review, we will get there if we are prepared to take the politics out of these things and work together. If we can do that, our farmers will benefit, our resources industry will benefit, the workers who work within it will benefit and, of course, our natural environment will benefit as well.
(Quorum formed)
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (12:31): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 and the amendment moved to it.
The Morrison government is failing Australian jobs and the Australian environment. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit and the economic recession it has 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 in Western Australia the Minister for Transport and Planning there called out the federal government for being the key hold-up to major projects across Perth.
Principally, the issue is this: the Morrison government has cut funding to the department of the environment so much that this department, the department that is responsible for federal environmental assessments of projects under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, is fundamentally failing to do its job. Under this Liberal government, approval delays have already blown out by 510 per cent—from 16 days to nearly four months, on average. Essentially, this is all 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 decisions on major projects were made late, and 79 per cent of decisions were affected by error or were non-compliant. 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 help to avoid delays being caused at the federal level. Of course, in looking at such bilateral agreements they should be about best-practice environmental protection and not open to finding the lowest common denominator. Recently, the Fraser Institute's Annual Survey of Mining Companies identified Western Australia as the No. 1 place in the world for mining and mineral exploration. WA is ideally placed to work with the Commonwealth and to lead the nation to deliver this once-in-a-generation reform.
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. In October last year the Morrison government commissioned a review into environmental laws, appointing Professor Graeme Samuel to head that review. Upon the completion of that inquiry, Professor Samuel said that our country needs better environmental laws, underpinned by national environmental standards, together with an enforcement body, as well as supporting bilateral agreements with the states, such as has been requested by the state of Western Australia.
It's vital that we simplify and reduce unnecessary regulatory obligations on industry whilst maintaining strong environmental protection standards to further aid the state's economic recovery and, indeed, our nation's economic recovery during this COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. However, it seems that the Liberal government are ignoring the recommendations of their own inquiry. The Samuel report found that, despite being subject to multiple reviews, audits and parliamentary inquiries since the commencement of the act, the administration of referrals, assessments and approvals of controlled actions under the EPBC Act are not effective.
I could go on. The report is quite damning on the government. But what came out of it were eight recommendations, all of which were agreed by the department, who stated that they were committed to the continuous improvement of processes and procedures. Despite the recommendations of the Samuel review, this government is trying to put through legislation now that does not include any environmental standards. This isn't just leaving our environment unprotected; it's 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 to have shovel-ready projects, that we needed to make sure that regulatory requirements were met speedily but properly so that job-creating projects can proceed as soon as possible, it is now when we're in the midst of the first recession in three decades. The national accounts have confirmed Australia is in the deepest recession for almost a century, with the economy experiencing the sharpest contraction ever on record. A record one million workers are already unemployed and an additional 400,000 are set to become jobless by Christmas. Yet the Morrison government still has no proper plan for jobs. It appears the only plan they have is for no jobs.
The Prime Minister and Treasurer went to wind back JobKeeper, cut wages, cut super and freeze the pension. This recession will be deeper and unemployment queues will longer because the Morrison government is leaving too many people behind. Workers, businesses and communities are crying out for a plan from the Morrison government to promote growth, protect and create jobs, support business and set Australia up for a proper recovery. The Morrison government has excellent conditions for reform at its disposal right now, and we, on this side of the House, have said that we will engage constructively. After all, Professor Samuel is a well-respected review chair who has been working diligently with leaders from agriculture, the resources sector and business as well as traditional owners, conservationists and academics.
The legislation before us today is a gross insult to the federal environment department, the work of Professor Samuel and the state governments across the country who are working so hard to get our nation moving after this COVID pandemic. In fact, this piece of legislation goes against what the report from Professor Samuel actually says. Our environment needs protection, business needs certainty and Australians need jobs. These changes fail on each count.
The Morrison government is putting jobs and investment at risk through this legislation. The model that Professor Samuel proposed in his interim report is contingent on the creation of strong interim national environmental standards, and when the government publicly released Professor Samuel's interim report back in July it said the proposed legislative changes would be accompanied by the standards. The Morrison government should not pursue amendments until the interim standards are finalised and made available to the people of Australia. Without national environmental standards recognised in law, each state jurisdiction could end up negotiating different standards into each bilateral agreement, which would increase job and investment delays and become a regulatory nightmare. It is precisely the opposite of what we should be striving for: nationally consistent environmental protections to provide certainty for project proponents and the environment.
Labor has made it clear all along that we are open to considering environmental law reforms that Professor Samuel has proposed. After all, it's Labor that has undertaken every major achievement in environmental protection in our nation's history. Labor's legacy is that we protected Antarctica, the Daintree, Kakadu, the Great Barrier Reef and the Franklin. We created Landcare and we created what was at the time the largest network of marine parks in the world. Only Labor has the will and capacity to properly protect Australia's environment.
Labor is also the party of jobs and job creation. Yet the Liberal government's record in this space is the opposite. It is utterly hopeless. Trying to push through incomplete legislation doesn't build support for reform. It's playing silly political games that will not only hurt jobs across the nation but reduce investment certainty.
This is the most significant opportunity for environmental reform that we've had in the last 20 years. The government must get this right. Environmental protection and supporting major projects are not mutually exclusive. In fact, good environmental laws should secure both. Indeed, it isn't good environmental law unless it does.
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 will not cut it. So what do we want to see? The Morrison government should introduce strong environmental standards and establish a genuinely independent cop on the beat for Australia's environment. It should fix the explosion of the unnecessary 500 per cent increase in investment delays caused by its funding cuts to the environment department.
Australia has a job crisis and an environmental crisis, and the Morrison government is failing Australia on both counts. We need to make sure that both job opportunities and the environment will be improved by this legislation, not compromised. If there was ever a time that we needed to get laws like this right, it is now, when we need to bring forward major job-creating projects to support our economy.
That's why Labor will not agree to the bill in the House: because a well-respected professor, who I'm sure was paid a healthy sum to undertake a detailed review, is not being listened to by the government that commissioned him to do that work. Professor Samuel made some good recommendations, and, as a result of that review, they should be followed. It's only appropriate that they are considered properly for all that they are worth.
That's why Labor will look to refer this bill to a Senate committee inquiry. It needs to be looked at properly. We recognise this legislation has been delayed following the release of the review. We recognise that state governments, including the Western Australian government, are hanging out for progress on these changes. But we will not agree to legislation that will put jobs and the environment on the line. We need to get this right. Far too many Australians, and the environment, are relying on us now.
(Quorum formed)
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (12:44): Australia's natural heritage and resources are under unprecedented threat. The Great Barrier Reef has again been subject to another bleaching event and its beauty and its contribution to Australia is again under threat. The Murray-Darling river system is probably the worst that it has been in our nation's history, and all of those towns and communities that rely on the Murray-Darling as a source of economic support but also as a source of human support are now at risk. Our coastlines are subject to unprecedented erosion, and some of that is occurring in places where it has never occurred in the past. We've just come through one of the most prolonged and the deepest droughts in our nation's history. And, unfortunately, we have the unenviable record of the highest rate of mammal extinctions in the world. There's something that's not right with the way our environmental protection laws are working, and they need to change.
The effect of this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020, is to ignore some of the recommendations that have been made by the very thorough review that has just been undertaken by Graeme Samuel into the principal mechanism that the Commonwealth parliament has to protect and conserve our environment, and that is, of course, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The effect of this bill will be to amend the EPBC Act to allow further devolution of decision-making about environmental approvals to the states and territories under bilateral approval agreements. Many are worried that the effect of this is going to be to water down some of those protections that we have at a Commonwealth level to make sure, firstly, that if someone is proposing a development in a particular area where there are threatened or protected species or that is a conservation area then they don't do any damage to protected species and the like, and, secondly, that they meet all of the conditions that are put on the development and are part of the consent. The Samuel review points out that that scheme is not working in the way that it should, and to further devolve that check and balance and that decision-making really does endanger the protection of our environment and the purpose for which the act was established. Remember that I said earlier that we have the highest rate of mammal extinctions of any nation in the world, and the purpose of the EPBC Act is to actually reduce that rate of extinction—to stop that rate of extinction—because the act is specifically put there to protect threatened species and endangered species. And this bill will water down that protection.
It doesn't make sense for the government to ignore this independent review and the very thorough recommendations that were made by Graeme Samuel. In his independent review, Graeme Samuel, in the opening words, points out for people just what a parlous state the environmental approval process at a federal level is in in Australia, when he says:
Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. … The impact of climate change on the environment is building, and will exacerbate pressures, contributing to further decline.
He goes on to state:
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.
Now, when you're faced with a report like that—when you're faced with a summary of the stock and the measures that you have, as a government, to protect and conserve our natural environment—you don't go the opposite way and water down some of those protections, which is exactly what many are worried this bill will do.
The second element of the EPBC Act and its ineffectiveness relates to the approval process. Recently, the shadow minister has been very effective in highlighting the problems we've seen in the process of approvals since this government came to office. They were uncovered by the Auditor-General's report into approvals under the EPBC Act. They paint a very damning picture of this government's approach to those approvals and to making sure approvals are made in a timely fashion, abide by the provisions of the act, conserve and protect our native heritage, and, importantly, are policed.
The Auditor-General's report found there has been a 510 per cent increase in the average delay for approvals since 2014—that is, since this government came to office. Seventy-five per cent of the decisions that are made under the EPBC Act contain errors or are not compliant. That's a serious problem not only for environmental conservation and protection but for people who are investing in the proponents of developments and activities in our country that generate economic activity and support jobs. If they're faced with the prospect of a 510 per cent increase in the delay for an approval, then that's not good for our economy. We all know why this has occurred. We can pinpoint why this has occurred. It's because, when this government came to office, they slashed, burned and cut through the department, the staff and the expertise employed to do this job in making sure that we had a timely process for approvals, making sure the conditions under the act were met, and, importantly, making sure that when consents were made that those consents were policed and the outcomes were assured. We're not getting that from this government.
It's been identified by the Auditor-General through his report, it's been identified by Graeme Samuel in his report and it's been pointed out quite effectively by the shadow minister, so all Australians now know that this is a serious issue. We all know that the act is not working. It's not fit for purpose and it's not doing its job. And yet, this government completely ignores many of those recommendations and goes against the tone of the Samuel review in particular. It's not meeting the purpose of assessing projects in a timely manner, of compliance with conditions that have been put in place or of protecting our environment.
The Samuel review made a number of recommendations. It made important recommendations about the establishment of national environment standards. A focus on the core Commonwealth responsibilities under the act was the establishment of regional landscape plans. He was very scathing of the government's approach and the department's approach to consultation with First Nations Australians under this particular act. He described it as tokenism—that is, a tick-and-flick exercise where the views of Indigenous Australians were not genuinely taken into account.
If you want to know who are the best experts on environmental conservation, the best people that have the longest history of conserving for, caring for and nurturing our land, then look no further than the local Aboriginal population in a particular area. They've had tens of thousands of years of connection with that land and that environment, and they wouldn't have survived that long unless they knew how to conserve and protect that environment so that it sustained life into the future. They are the best advisers on environmental protection, and yet we see that there's nothing more than tokenism in the approach that's taken by government under this act with First Australians. That has to change. That simply has to change if we're going to make sure that we conserve our environment into the future.
The report points out that there's serious problems of duplication, and I know that is what the government would say this issue and this bill go to. But, if you're doing that on the basis of trying to water down the protections that are put in place—particularly around protected species and threatened species, which are the Commonwealth's responsibility; it hangs from the Constitution and the laws that were put in place from the international covenants that we signed up to—and you're trying to water down that check that, importantly, occurs at the federal level, that's not acting in the interests of the environment and that's not making the law fit for purpose.
The review also talks about the importance of environmental offsets and how they've been poorly designed and implemented, and it also points out that, in Professor Samuel's view, the department is simply too weak. In particular, it's too weak on compliance and making sure that the conditions that are put in place for environmental approvals are actually met by the proponents of those proposals as the projects come to light. This is a serious issue, and it's something that's been identified by the Labor Party for some years now in the consultations that we've undertaken with the Australian people. That's why at the last election we had a policy to deal with this issue, and that was the establishment of a national environmental watchdog—an EPA, if you like—to make sure that conditions under the EPBC Act are met and complied with and that there are stiff penalties for people who don't do so.
The Samuel report also makes some recommendations about immediate reform that can happen straightaway, and that's what this government's trying to do. They're trying to use that as the basis for this. But they've taken perhaps one per cent of what Graeme Samuel has said and ignored 99 per cent of the recommendations for immediate action, and that's why Labor will oppose this bill.
Principal among those recommendations for immediate action is the establishment of national environmental standards, clear rules for how decisions are made and contribute to outcomes for the environment, and making sure that they are binding and enforceable and developed in consultation with Indigenous Australians and with the state and territory governments. Here's an immediate step that Samuel has recommended that the government can take, and they would get Labor's approval to do so, yet they've completely ignored that important recommendation from the report.
That really highlights that the government isn't serious about fixing these problems that have been identified by the Samuel review. The government really isn't serious about working in a cooperative manner on environmental conservation and protection and trying to get some bipartisanship on this issue of environmental protection in Australia. If they were serious about it then they would act on some of those recommendations that Samuel made for immediate attention. Instead, the government chose to ignore those recommendations.
What we've got here is a rehash of a failed proposal, a failed bill that was put into the parliament back in the era of the Abbott government. It rehashes that old approach of a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals and fails to deliver on necessary environmental protection, and that is why I and my Labor colleagues are not supportive of this particular provision.
I again reiterate the importance of a national environment protection agency. Labor has been very strong on this and on pointing out that, if the government were serious about this compliance issue under the EPBC Act, they would seriously look at that. Again, this is another area where we could achieve bipartisanship and work together for the conservation of the environment.
In conclusion, we're opposing this bill. I'm speaking in support of the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister and encouraging the government to end this divide, to end this ridiculous war on environmental protection that's gone on in this country for too long, and to try and work in a bipartisan manner. Let's start with the recommendations of the Samuel review so that we get a fair-dinkum approach to environmental protection and improve the operation of the EPBC Act for all Australians.
(Quorum formed)
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (13:02): [by video link] I rise to speak on the amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It gives me no great pleasure to say that the Labor Party will not be supporting this amendment to this important piece of legislation, the EPBC Act, although I think every Labor member in this place wants to support an amendment to it. I take this opportunity to commend the previous speaker, the member for Kingsford Smith, on his contribution to this debate and, of course, I thank the shadow minister, the member for Griffith, who has done an outstanding job of steering difficult pieces of legislation through in a constructive but principled way. I support her and the Labor Party's position to oppose this piece of legislation.
The EPBC Act needs updating. The Samuel review was part of the 10-year statutory requirement to update and review this piece of legislation. We desperately need to update the EPBC Act, but the bill that the government has presented in this place on this day is not the bill that we in this country need and will accept. The bill before the parliament will not protect our environment, it will not protect jobs and it will not protect the natural wonders that Australia is so proud of. Our environmental interests in this country align with our economic interests in this country. What we need and is good for the environment is good for the economy. A research paper conducted in my office by my parliamentary intern found that almost 300,000 Australians work in some form of job connected to the environment. The environment is a job-creating machine, and we need to protect it.
In this contribution, I'm going to outline why the EPBC Act is important and why this review is so important. I'm going to outline parts of what is in this bill, and I'm then going to go to what actually should be done in this place. Before I do, I just want to point out one fact—that not one member of the government, not one member of the coalition, is standing up to speak on this bill. Not one member of the government is standing up to support this EPBC Act amendment. It shows that their heart is not in it. It shows that they don't want to stand up and be associated with this bill. This bill is bad for our environment, bad for jobs, bad for our country. That's why not one member of the government has the guts to stand up and defend it. But we will fight it in this place.
Why is the EPBC Act so important? To start this part of my contribution, I want to thank the environmentalists, including local environmentalists in Macnamara, who have, at every stage of my time as the member for Macnamara, engaged constructively, positively and passionately with me about protection for the environment. I especially want to thank members of the Australian Conservation Foundation locally who have helped and made submissions not only to the EPBC Act review, the Samuel review, but also to me personally for my contribution on this bill. I thank them at this moment.
The EPBC Act is important because it is crucial to protecting our natural environment and our incredibly valuable ecosystems in this country. Healthy Australians can only exist in a healthy Australian natural environment, and the current EPBC Act has failed to protect Australia's natural wonders. We have the highest rate of mammal extinction in the world. Our water and air quality are declining. Our planet is rapidly warming and it is already having devastating consequences. We saw bushfires increase in intensity over summer. We're seeing severe droughts. We are in an ecological crisis, and things are only getting worse. This should not be happening in a developed country, when we have the resources to protect our most valuable assets. The current EPBC Act does not protect the things it is supposed to protect, and it needs to be strengthened. It needs to be monitored. It needs to be effectively enforced by an independent regulator.
But revisiting and resubmitting this failed bill from 2014, from Prime Minister Tony Abbott, is an insult to the 30,000 Australians who submitted constructively to the Samuel review that the government undertook itself and who made submissions to help strengthen our environmental laws. Now is the time to bring people together on this bill. Now is the time to constructively bring people—scientists, businesses, conservationists, Indigenous Australians and people who have a stake in our environment—together and to listen to the experts. But of course that is too far removed from the capabilities of this government. The bill before us is a far cry and is far removed from what Professor Samuel is recommending in his interim report. Instead of listening to the interim report of Professor Samuel, the government has chosen to put forward a bill that will only make a bad situation worse. At the very heart of the Samuel review comes a clear recommendation that the Commonwealth cannot cede environmental standards to the states and that what we need in this country is a clear and strong set of national environmental standards led and introduced by the federal government. But of course, instead of listening to Professor Samuel, this bill hands over much of the decision-making to the states and does not set out strong and clear federal environmental standards, because we know this government has no strong and clear federal environmental standards. It is happy to trash our environment and watch it be destroyed.
To make matters worse, when the minister wants to bypass the states she will be able to call in decisions under this bill but has removed the transparency and accountability measures that are so desperately needed in decision-making in the environmental space at the moment. To summarise, she can hand over to the states but, when she doesn't want to, she's going to do it secretly and without transparency.
That leads me to another part of what the Samuel review has recommended, which is to improve trust transparency in the act, including publishing all materials related to approval decisions. The Samuel review recognises that there isn't enough transparency on this piece of legislation but, instead of increasing transparency and accountability in environmental decision-making, the government is looking to reduce it. They are looking to reduce their own accountability and their own transparency in this much-needed space. At the last election Labor committed to introducing a federal environmental protections agency, an independent agency, that would help oversee that environmental standards are upheld. Professor Samuel recommended that they needed an independent cop on the beat, but this government doesn't want oversight. They don't want an independent agency; they want to continue with secretive and unaccountable environmental decisions.
As the member for Kingsford Smith pointed out very eloquently in his contribution, the interim report has also recommended that there be a specific standard on best-practice Indigenous engagement in this bill. We were reminded why this is so important recently when Rio Tinto destroyed the irreplaceable Juukan Gorge rock shelters in Western Australia. And, unsurprisingly, there is no reference to a specific standard on best practice on Indigenous engagement in this bill.
So what do we want to see? We want to see strong national environmental standards. We agree with Professor Samuel that the way to strengthen our environment is not to cede control to the states but for the federal government to have a strong and clear idea of what it is to protect our environment and the standards of environmental protection that are needed in this country. The Prime Minister and the minister have all of the conditions that they could possibly wish for at their disposal. We have an opposition who have said consistently that we will engage with the government. We will work with Professor Samuel and the review. We will work with agriculture. We will work with the resources sector, with businesses, with traditional owners, with conservationists and with academics. But, like with all things, government is wasted on Scott Morrison and government is wasted on this bunch. They are not interested in improving our national environmental standards. They are not interested in introducing a bill that even listens to their own review. All they're interested in is continuing the ineptitude, the inaction and the devastation that we're seeing in our natural environment. We should be implementing strong national environmental standards. We should be introducing an independent cop on the beat, an independent agency, to help uphold these standards. We should be putting the resources needed to ensure that our federal government agencies have all of the tools at their disposals to ensure that our environmental standards are met and that businesses have certainty and accountability.
The Labor Party will not cede our principle that it is our responsibility in this place to uphold strong environmental laws. The Labor Party's legacy is that we protected Antarctica, the Daintree, Kakadu, the Great Barrier Reef and the Franklin. We created Landcare. It is Labor governments that have a record of environmental protection that is to be admired and to be proud of, but the same cannot be said of the Morrison government.
Locally, in Macnamara, at the last election I was pleased to be able to commit the federal Labor Party to one of the largest inner-city urban environmental protection project that we've seen in the last decade. In Elwood, in the heart of my electorate, we had a plan to support the local government and the local council to turn the old Elsternwick Golf Course into a natural environmental wetland to protect local species, to protect local plants and to protect indigenous wildlife. It was one of the proudest and most exciting election commitments that I had, going into the last election. I'm pleased to say that the plans for this environmental protection are going ahead locally, thanks to the work of the local government, the St Kilda eco centre and many of the committed local environmental agencies and organisations, which are working tirelessly. But we are not seeing the same commitment from this federal government to protecting our precious and limited natural wonders.
The member for Kingsford Smith rightly pointed out that our Indigenous Australians are the ones we should be listening to. Locally, the Boonwurrung people, the traditional owners from where I represent and live, used to watch the waterways near the city of Port Phillip, before it became a wetland, before it became a bay. They used to watch the fish population and when the fish population used to decline the Boonwurrung used to stop the fishing from the six Boonwurrung clans, as well as the visiting clans, until the fish had enough time to have their population increase. For thousands of years our traditional owners locally around the country have protected our natural wonders and wildlife. They understand conservation and sustainability.
But, according to this piece of legislation before us today, this government does not. The government have put forward a bill that will not do what the review that they instigated recommends. We need stronger and more formidable environmental protections in this country. The planet is warming. Our species are dying out and we cannot trust the Morrison government to protect our environment.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:17): [by video link] The Morrison government is taking a chainsaw to our environment laws. They're making it easier for their corporate mates in mining, oil and gas to get their projects approved, which will put our environment and wildlife at risk. With this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020, the federal government is passing their responsibilities for protecting our environment onto the states, where there are weaker laws and fewer environmental protections. We know that state governments are often in the pocket of developers and big corporations. We need more environmental protections, not less. Just this year we have seen what happens when our environmental laws are too weak: Rio Tinto blows up a 40,000-year-old Aboriginal heritage site in the Juukan Gorge. We also know what happens when we have strong environmental protections. It is federal environmental protections that stopped the Franklin River from being dammed, and they protected our World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef from being drilled for oil. We can't let the Prime Minister trash our environment. We need strong national environmental standards and an independent regulator who can properly enforce environmental protections. The Greens fought this bill when Tony Abbott introduced it in 2014 and we will fight it again now.
We are in an extinction crisis. We are in an environment and climate emergency. We are being warned that unless we take action in less than the next few years we could start off a chain reaction that will mean climate change is unstoppable and that will take with it large parts of our environment. We have seen just over this summer one billion creatures lose their lives, an unprecedented devastation to our natural areas. We are also seeing a massive, massive attack on our water supply, on the basics of life, as big corporations get given the green light by state and federal governments to do things that they just should not be able to do.
We know from our history that it is often state governments who will be the most co-opted by big corporations. They will have the weakest protections, they're the ones who get the donations from the developers and the corporations, and they're the ones that are most likely to give the green light to devastating projects. Whether it's the Queensland Labor government giving the go-ahead to devastating coalmines in the Carmichael basin or Liberal governments who never cared about the environment in the first place, we need strong national laws to protect our environment.
It's not just the Greens saying this. It's not just the Australian public saying this. An independent review that the government itself commissioned of its own environment laws has said that the existing environment laws are not strong enough; they have holes in them big enough to drive a bulldozer through. The review has found very clearly that our environment laws don't do the job of protecting our threatened species or our environment. You would think that, when you have national laws called 'the environment protection laws', you could look in there and find something, somewhere, in clear black and white, that protected the environment. But you don't, at the moment, under our laws. They are just not working.
The government's own independent review said it. The independent review said that we not only need to change those laws, to put in place strong environmental standards, but we need a strong cop on the beat. In other words, once we've got these standards, we also then need to make sure that there is someone who will hold government and corporations to account to make sure that those laws aren't breached, so that the laws themselves actually get enforced. And only then, the independent review said, might you consider allowing someone other than the Commonwealth government to make the decision.
But what does the Morrison government do? The Morrison government comes along and says: 'Well, we'll ignore the bit in the report that says we need tougher environmental standards, we'll ignore the bit that says we need a cop on the beat, but what we will do is hand over all of our powers to the state governments and let them make decisions.' Make no mistake: if this bill passes, our environment will suffer. And all of the things that people power and federal governments have protected before—like stopping the Franklin from being dammed—will now be under threat, and it will be the state government that gets the final say.
The federal government—all that the minister has to hang her hat on with this is to say: 'It's okay. You can trust me.' 'You can trust us,' the minister says. She says: 'It's alright. In this bill, we'll enable the government to call in an action for approval in appropriate circumstances.' I'm sorry, Minister, but I don't trust you. I have absolutely no doubt that, if it came down to a choice between the Commonwealth stepping in and overriding a state government or just letting the state government and corporations do what they want to do, the government would sit on their hands. Just as this government sat on its hands as the Juukan Gorge was destroyed, so they will in the future as well.
Passing a bill on the basis that a government who has so far shown a complete disregard for the environment might do something in the future is the wrong way to go. But we hear more from the minister. She says: 'It's okay. You can pass this bill because what we'll do after the bill is passed is put in place some of those strong protections that the independent review said were missing from our laws.' In other words, the minister says: 'Trust me. If you pass this bill, I'll then go and negotiate some separate agreements with the states, and I'll hope that they abide by them.' Come on! Do you think we came down in the last shower? You haven't even written these supposed standards. You haven't even got one state to agree to it. And why on earth is a state going to tie their hands after the bill has been passed?
If the government was serious about protecting our environment, it would have come to the table with a piece of legislation that included strong protections and included strong deals that it had reached with the states. I don't necessarily accept the idea that we can hand off powers to the states, because I don't trust them either. But no-one believes the idea the government is peddling—'It's okay. You can trust us. We'll put in some protections in the future'. No-one believes that, Minister. No-one believes that, Prime Minister.
If nothing else—even if you don't agree with the Greens, the Australian public and the independent review that we need strong standards—at an absolute minimum you would think we should care about proper process. The EPBC Act is undergoing its statutory 10-year review. We should let the expert panel complete its final report before we make any new changes. That is a very simple and uncontroversial proposition. Even if you disagree with the Greens about how strong the standards for protecting our environment need to be, at the least the statutory review should be allowed to conclude. No-one could have any objections to that. The interim report said there are a number of changes that need to be made, and I've mentioned three that have been specifically identified. But you don't go and change a law in the middle of a review about that law—unless you are this government, which wants to destroy our environment even further and hand over more power to big corporations and state governments.
And, even if you disagree with the Greens about the level of environmental protection that we need in this country, we should also, at a minimum, have this bill looked at by a Senate inquiry. The Greens have been trying in the Senate to get a Senate inquiry into this bill. That should be uncontroversial. It's what the Senate does. It's part of the reason that the Senate is there. It inquires into bills. We have been trying to get a Senate inquiry into this bill. Instead, the government has said no. The government is blocking this bill from even going to an inquiry. What are you trying to hide? Is there more in this bill that we haven't yet uncovered? Would you be worried that, if we sent the bill to a Senate inquiry, it is going to show that it is even worse than we feared? You've got these wonderful arguments in place about why the only thing you as a government can do to deal with the environment is dust off a bill that Tony Abbott tried to get through the parliament. If, after all the time you've had in power to think about how you are going to protect the environment, that is all you can do, why won't you let the bill be looked at by a Senate inquiry? What are you afraid of?
If you're trying to create new standards that serve as a backdrop to the integrity of state and territory laws, let us have time to consider if they are fit for purpose before we pass this legislation. We should be reviewing these hypothetical national environment standards that you tell us are contained in this bill—which you think are such strong protections—before we give the minister a blank cheque to sign all of the Commonwealth powers over to the states. That is what this bill is trying to do—give the states a blank cheque and hand Commonwealth responsibility over to the states. This is one of the biggest moves we would see in environmental law for decades. And the government doesn't even want it to go to inquiry. The government won't even let an inquiry look at this legislation.
We are seeing something very worrying under the cover of the coronavirus crisis. We are seeing this government say: 'We'll never let a good crisis go to waste. We're going to use this opportunity to try and ram through legislation,' They are pretending it has something to do with jobs, when it really doesn't; it's just about making sure the donors get what they paid for by allowing corporations to have more say. We are seeing the government use the coronavirus crisis as a cover for attacks on democracy and attacks on our environment. This is part of the bull-headed rush-through of the government's deregulatory agenda. We are seeing the government attempting to remove people's rights at work by pushing through the emergency industrial relations powers that were put in place to deal with the coronavirus crisis. The government is now extending them. People who don't even get JobKeeper are now subject to having their rights taken away even though they get no support. The government is also trying to ram through its pro-gas agenda. That would be a climate crime and a climate catastrophe. We know gas is as dirty as coal. The government is trying to use the cover of the coronavirus crisis to say—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate will be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
COVID-19: International Travel
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (13:30): [by video link] I have too many of my constituents stranded overseas. They want to come home, but the Morrison government won't let them. In fact, there are nearly 100,000 Aussies who want to come home. At least 3,500 are considered medically or financially vulnerable. Under the current cap-and-price-gouge system, they've been waiting for months. A young man in Strathmore in the UK writes to me: 'Australians overseas are being treated poorly by their government. I've seen the stress that it's putting them under. It's a disgrace.' These Aussies could be easily repatriated and quarantined, but their homecomings are being thwarted by caps, airline price-gouging and government inaction. If you're an Aussie stranded overseas, Australian citizenship should entitle you to have your government go in to bat. There are Australian families vying to leave France, New York, Texas, Slovakia, Singapore, Thailand—everywhere. But, at the same time, the red carpet is being rolled out to international students in their hundreds to go to Adelaide. I have heard from Mr Angus of Essendon, now in Singapore, who is watching Singaporean students get into Australia, but people with the emu and kangaroo on their passport can't. It's not a person's bank account that matters; it should be their passport. It's not good enough. Get your act together, Mr Morrison. Bring our people home from all around the world, back to Australia.
Wide Bay Electorate: Roads
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (13:31): The Deputy Prime Minister, Queensland minister for road safety Mark Bailey and the state member for Maryborough have a plan to build a Tiaro bypass that puts road users in danger and lacks vision for a growing Maryborough and Fraser Coast. When building a new road, safety should always be the first priority, but sadly, in this case, it wasn't. Only after my protests did the road safety minister cobble together some idea of a dividing barrier, but it's still only on a dangerous two-lane road. If you truly have a vision for zero fatalities you don't build the road the government is planning to build around Tiaro. It is just not good enough.
I have a vision to see Maryborough as a thriving economic and manufacturing centre that will need the best road infrastructure to support that economic capacity, with the highest safety standards for families, tourists and transport workers. I ask: does the state member for Maryborough share this vision or not? Interstate truck drivers tell me how they dread this section of road, a black spot heavily used by B-doubles, cars and grey nomads towing caravans. We need a four-lane road so the families of those essential workers can relax, knowing that the journey will be an easy and safe one. The government's planned highway is an unsafe two-lane highway of yesterday, not a safe four-lane highway for tomorrow.
Blair Electorate: JobKeeper Payment
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:33): [by video link] There are over 1,700 meatworkers and their families with an uncertain future in Ipswich. They face a real prospect of permanently losing their jobs. They work at the JBS meatworks at Dinmore, but this government is denying them JobKeeper. The company and the union are both saying the same thing: give them JobKeeper They want to keep their jobs. The government has tweaked and changed JobKeeper eligibility criteria in the past. They've bragged about it. They've talked about it relentlessly. They do it in question time. But they're not prepared to help these workers.
On 19 August, I wrote to the Treasurer about this issue, but I have yet to receive a response. I urged him to do the right thing by these workers and provide JobKeeper so they can keep their jobs. Yesterday, in question time, the Prime Minister offered these workers unemployment benefits. Not all these workers will get unemployment benefits, Prime Minister. Every case is different. To equate the dole or unemployment benefits—JobSeeker, as it's now called—with keeping a job is insult and arrogance. Do your job, Treasurer. Do your job, Prime Minister. Help these workers. Give them JobKeeper. They want to work. Don't let them down. I'll stand up for these workers, the company will stand up for the workers and the union will stand up for the workers. Treasurer and Prime Minister, will you stand up for the workers?
Beirut: Explosion
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:34): I rise to speak about the disaster that occurred in Beirut on 4 August this year, which was a great tragedy, with over 160 people killed and over 6,000 people injured. The enormity of this tragedy is absolutely staggering. I wish to offer the people of Lebanon and the Australian Lebanese community my sincere condolences. Their loss and heartache must be overwhelming.
Australia is home to over 230,000 Lebanese Australians. For almost a century, the electorate of Berowra has been home to a large number of these Lebanese Australians and Australians with Lebanese heritage. In fact, nearly 3,000 people in Berowra claim Lebanese ancestry and 752 people were actually born in Lebanon. The St George Maronite Catholic Church in Thornleigh has been a beacon and focal point for the Lebanese Maronite community for over a hundred years. This parish has flourished and offers many in our community a place of solace, particularly at this time. We have a vibrant, generous, hardworking Lebanese community throughout my electorate, and Lebanese Australians have succeeded in every field of endeavour, from horticulture to the hospitality industry, to trade, construction, education, the professions and more.
The explosion in Beirut and the horrific scenes which followed would have been gruelling for many in my community. My heartfelt condolence goes to all the Lebanese families in my electorate who've been affected. To those impacted by the events of 4 August: know that Australia stands with you not just by providing humanitarian support and aid but in solidarity as you continue to deal with the impacts of the Beirut explosion and the ramifications it's having for so many people beyond Lebanon.
Werriwa Electorate: Volunteers
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (13:36): I rise to acknowledge and praise all the volunteers in the electorate of Werriwa. As in previous years, I planned to hold a thankyou morning tea during National Volunteer Week in May. Due to COVID, of course, that was not possible. Thankfully, I was able to acknowledge our volunteers via social media. Each awardee was acknowledged with a certificate and a letter of congratulations that were sent to them. Their stories have left a lasting impression, as have their heroics and humility. They are a wonderful set of people.
Among the groups that were awarded a Werriwa volunteer award were the Middleton Grange and Casula fire brigades. They worked all through the bushfire season, working closely with the Horsley Park brigade, who tragically lost two of their members fighting the fires. Awardees were recognised for their effort also during the COVID-19 pandemic. Groups like Turbans 4 Australia, who provided food and goods during the fires, continued to do that during the COVID lockdown.
I congratulate all the Werriwa volunteers, especially the recipients of the 2020 Werriwa volunteer awards, and thank them for their contribution. I look forward to awarding and speaking to volunteers in person next year, after COVID.
Braddon Electorate: paper on skin Exhibition
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (13:37): The Morrison government is committed to helping artists promote their local stories to local audiences in regional and rural areas right across the north-west, the west coast and King Island in Tasmania. Recently, I had the great privilege of visiting the Burnie arts gallery to view the vibrant paper on skin exhibition—that's right, paper on skin. This amazing exhibition had been supported by our federal government through our Regional Arts Fund. Paper on skin 2020 is a display of wearable art. Exhibitors have sent their art from all over Australia, Europe, New Zealand and the US to be part of the display. Given the enormous challenges of transport during the past six months, I commend Lyndal Thorne, the vice-president of the Burnie Arts Council, and her team for their resilience and persistence in making the project a reality.
In mid-March, with the support and trust of their partners, the artists and the dedicated organisational committee, they forged ahead to make the decision go viral. In Lyndal's words: 'It has been worth it. From a purely artistic perspective, the standard of the works received has been outstanding'—I can attest to this—'generating awe, inspiration and a very difficult task for our judges. The pandemic is clearly not an impediment to the great ability of our finalists.' I wish everyone on the project all the best for tomorrow's screening of paper on skin the film, out tomorrow.
Partner Visas
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:39): When it comes to partner visas you can't get more mean-spirited than this government. Can I say to this government: would you just get out of the way and let people who love each other get on with their lives.
Right now, there are nearly 100,000 Australians and, in many cases, their children in limbo, waiting and waiting for this miserable government to grant their partner visas. We are talking years here. They come into my office: fathers who haven't seen their children for years, and in some cases have not met them but have to talk to them by FaceTime; couples in incredible distress, seeing their marriages under more and more threat every single day. It used to take six months to get a partner visa, then 12—and I felt bad then—and now it has blown out and can take two years or more. One woman in my electorate, with four children, had been waiting five years to be reunited with the husband she thought had died in the war in Afghanistan. Five years she's been waiting—10 years since the children have met their father. These are extraordinary stories.
The Prime Minister is once again showing his true colours, because it was him who did it. When he became the immigration minister, the government put a hard cap on the number of partner visas issued every year. It's hard to imagine why you would do that. Why would you do that? But he did. And, in the last two years, they've reduced the number again and again. Honestly, Prime Minister, get real about this and let Australians who love their families be together.
Grey Electorate: headspace
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:40): Next Thursday will mark the official opening of the Port Lincoln headspace. It actually opened its doors on 1 July, so we've been a bit slow, but on Thursday we'll be recognising the fact that they're up and open for business. It's been quite a process to get it in place. Finding premises took a bit longer than we'd hoped, but $1.5 million has been allocated for the first four years, with $400,000 of that for setting up.
I'd like to particularly thank Jo Clark from West Coast Youth and Community Support, and its Mentally Fit EP group, who have lobbied hard to bring about this outcome. I thank the council and the Port Lincoln Aboriginal Health Service, who have all put their shoulders to the wheel to bring about this outcome.
The Port Lincoln headspace will be the fourth headspace in Grey, all put into place, luckily, since I've been in this place. Port Augusta was first; then Whyalla; then the Flying headspace out of Port Augusta, a unique service run by the RFDS; and now Port Lincoln. If I had my druthers, I'd really like to see one established in Port Pirie, another large regional centre in the electorate of Grey. But they do a great job, dealing with these kids aged from 12 to 25—because we know early intervention can really make a difference. So bring it on, headspace.
SmartBar Walk for a Veteran with PTSD
Mayo Electorate: Cycling and Walking Trails
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:42): I recently joined hundreds of walkers for the annual SmartBar Walk for a Veteran with PTSD. This event raises awareness, and it raised around $60,000 for veterans and emergency services personnel. I would like to acknowledge walk founder Chad McLaren for organising such a worthwhile initiative.
I'd also mention the beautiful shared-use trail through the Adelaide Hills that was used for a large section of the walk. The Amy Gillett Bikeway stretches from Oakbank to Mount Torrens and is very popular. Securing funding to complete stage 4 of the bikeway, from Mount Torrens to Birdwood, is a project I have been advocating for since I was first elected in 2016. Thousands use the bikeway. It is a huge drawcard for tourism in Mayo. Completing stage 4 will add to the appeal of this safe, family-friendly trail.
Further south, I'm pushing for a shared walking and cycling track between McLaren Flat and McLaren Vale. The Flat to Vale Trail is a high-priority project in the McLaren Vale wine region, and I'm very pleased to advocate, on behalf of our community, for federal support for this very worthwhile project.
Walking, cycling, horseriding—they're very popular recreational activities in Mayo. On the Amy Gillett Bikeway, you'll see prams and little tykes on bikes. Building a network of trails adds to the social and economic wellbeing of our community. I look forward to continuing to have positive conversations with government about both of those projects.
Leifer, Ms Malka
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (13:43): I am very pleased to inform the House that there's been a significant development in the extradition case of Ms Malka Leifer. Members may recall that Ms Leifer was the principal of the Adass Israel School in Melbourne in the early 2000s and is wanted for 74 charges of sexually abusing three former students from her time there. Ms Leifer fled to Israel in 2008 to avoid justice, and Australia first sought her extradition over six years ago now. Since that time, there have been over 70 court hearings in Israel concerning this matter.
Ms Leifer has consistently and misleadingly claimed she was mentally unfit to stand trial, which is why this has taken so long. But, overnight, the Israeli Supreme Court has rejected her final appeal in this regard, ruling that she was indeed fit to stand trial and, in doing so, as the court said, 'putting an end to the saga that has been drawn out for many years'. It has indeed been a saga that has been drawn out for far too many years. Israeli authorities can now proceed quickly with Ms Leifer's extradition process. I expect that can happen relatively quickly and that this issue, which had become a considerable source of tension in our otherwise good relationship with Israel, can be dealt with quickly by the Australian courts.
I cannot overstate what a victory this is. It's a victory for justice, it's a victory for the victims of child sexual abuse everywhere and it's a victory for those brave victims who have been so courageous in leading this campaign: Dassi Erlich, Nicole Meyer and Elly Sapper.
Hunter Region: Manufacturing
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:45): The Newcastle Herald headline today screams, '4,000 lost jobs—how the Hunter's manufacturing industry is shrinking.' And that's on the watch of this government. For seven long years they have controlled the Treasury purse strings, and for seven long years we've watched as they've let the manufacturing industry and the jobs that go with it get honeycombed in Australia. That's to the point where when we have a pandemic we can't even produce our own PPE. It is a national disgrace.
Our national economy is struggling. But the Hunter region has been the shoulders upon which this nation has been standing for decades—we have drawn the coal, produced the energy, made the steel, built the ships and produced the aluminium while this government is asleep at the wheel. It is an absolute disgrace.
As we see more and more pressure being piled on the people of Australia and the people of New South Wales, the Premier of New South Wales said, 'Oh, well, we're not very good at making things in New South Wales so we need to import them.' This is an absolute scandal. Just last week she said that she was proud of our manufacturing industry in New South Wales, and now we're not very good at building trains. Shame on you, Prime Minister, and shame on you, New South Wales Premier!
Ryan Electorate: National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (13:46): The Morrison government is delivering on its commitment to address the unacceptably high rates of suicide amongst Australian Defence Force members and veterans. This is an issue that is absolutely critical that we address. Too many Australians commit suicide, and our defence and veteran community are suffering heavily through current and former serving members of our Defence Force making the decision to end their own lives.
The government wants to make sure we're building a better support system for our defence personnel and veterans. We want to make sure that defence personnel and veterans get the support they need when they need it. Last week, legislation introduced by the Attorney-General marked a significant step towards the establishment of a national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide prevention. The national commissioner will have powers broadly equivalent to a royal commission, but with a permanent office which can continually monitor the implementation of its own recommendations to ensure long-term solutions. There will be a four-week consultation on the bills, which will inform the refinement of the legislation going forward to parliament.
I really encourage defence personnel, veterans and their families in the electorate of Ryan, with our very large Defence Force base at Enoggera, to provide their feedback directly to me about the national commissioner and the legislation. This is a complex issue we must tackle together. Working together as a community, we can prevent further suicides amongst our veteran community.
Morrison Government
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (13:48): The Prime Minister turns his back on Western Australia. His WA Liberal team were happy to choose Clive Palmer over the people of WA, and now the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are doing Clive Palmer's bidding via the back door. The members for Swan, Hasluck, Stirling and the rest are undermining their own state—treason against Western Australia, they would once have said!
The Prime Minister said that we need to get out from under the doona, and when it came to Clive Palmer's High Court case he used the withdrawal method! I promised my community that I would bring their voices into this place. When it comes to the WA border, here is what they have to say to the WA Liberals: Mr Schultz asked, 'Why does the Prime Minister support people like Colbeck and Palmer and turn his back on the aged?' Josh Bryson said, 'Why does he want to gamble with Western Australian lives?' Michael Rowan said, 'This pandemic has exposed the vicious LNP.'
Bronwyn is much more positive; she says that she supports our Premier, Mike McGowan, and all of his team. So do I. I can't say that about those opposite. A very sensible bloke in my electorate, John, said that he has an old saying, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it!' And Linda has the sad truth about this government, that it's 'becoming the comic relief during this pandemic'. Isn't that sad, but isn't that so true?
Sturt Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:49): I must say one of the silver linings of the coronavirus challenges we've all had has been the engagement of so many people again in the great outdoors. In my electorate of Sturt in particular, that's meant enjoying the beautiful bush walks that are available to us through the Adelaide foothills. In fact, in many cases it's in the member for Mayo's electorate rather than my own, but certainly my constituents enjoy that fantastic natural asset that we have.
But it has certainly exposed something that I've known for much longer than just the last few months: that we have insubstantial infrastructure to handle the great demand from the people who want to go and park in some of the areas adjacent to these bushwalks. So I was very pleased to see that the Burnside council had put forward a proposal for a new expansion of car parking halfway along Waterfall Gully Road at Chambers Gully. Happily—ask and you shall receive—the Commonwealth are contributing to and investing in that car-parking facility, which will be a really good outcome for the local residents there. At the moment, a lot of people are parking not quite within the rules, and that's quite frustrating if you're a resident. But also it's very difficult for people to fully access and enjoy the opportunities that are there for them to go on these lovely walks through the picturesque Adelaide Hills. So I commend the Morrison government for this decision and the Burnside council for coming up with the idea, and I look forward to a great outcome for my local community.
Higher Education
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (13:51): I was fortunate to study law at the University of Western Australia, and more recently I've worked in a number of roles at UWA for more than a decade. I'm not from a wealthy family, I didn't attend a private school and I know the opportunity to go to university changed my life. That opportunity isn't available to many kids like me from places like Rockingham. We have to fight hard to get to university. A spot at uni and the money needed to get you through don't fall into the laps of kids from the outer suburbs and the regions—not like this born-to-rule mob on the other side of the House. Every one of the Prime Minister's Liberal Party cabinet ministers went to university, and it's the present crop of privileged Liberals that is responsible for the worst attacks we have ever seen on Australian universities. They want to pull up the drawbridge and keep the outer suburbs less educated.
Two great WA unis, Curtin Uni and Murdoch Uni, have just announced COVID restrictions, and government cuts mean hundreds of uni staff will be out of a job. That's hundreds of Western Australians thrown on the unemployment scrap heap in the middle of a public health and economic crisis—in the middle of a recession—and this government does not care. How do we know they don't care? Because they deliberately excluded the university sector from the JobKeeper scheme. They want to make it harder for young Australians to go to university because they don't care about young Australians. Well, young Australians are watching you, and they are not going to take this rubbish anymore from this rubbish Liberal government.
Forde Electorate: Sewing for Charity Australia
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (13:52): Throughout this pandemic, we've seen Australians go above and beyond to assist their fellow Australians in a spirit of community and mateship—Australians like Cass Gell from Waterford, who in 2015 founded Sewing for Charity Australia, a national charity with a roster of over 3,000 volunteers who have made over 150,000 handmade items and donated them to vulnerable Australians. Recently, they opened their headquarters, known as the Sewing Lair, in Beenleigh. The Sewing Lair is where creativity meets community. It is completely run by volunteers and is a safe and supportive space for people to come together, form new friendships, learn new skills and create with purpose. The volunteers are the heart and soul of the Forde electorate, and it's great to see that Australians from all walks of life are ready and willing to help. People such as year 12 student Thomas Gore, Quota Beenleigh member Gillian Giles and even the local councillors and my wife, Judi, have given up their time to lend a hand. Since opening, Sewing for Charity have supported over 250 organisations and hundreds of families with special-needs items for children, the elderly, cancer patients, premature babies and more. More recently, they have been busy sewing re-usable masks for vulnerable Australians and have sent almost 10,000 of them all over the country, including to Victoria. Thank you, Cass and the team from Sewing for Charity Australia.
Higher Education
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:54): Like the member for Brand, I was the first in my family to enrol to go to university. I wasn't the first to graduate. My mother beat me by six months. She was a little bit more academic than I was. But I did graduate with a humanities degree—a degree that, today, this government wants to radically increase the cost of, excluding so many of this generation of young people from accessing university. This government, with what they've pushed through the House, while stopping members like me from speaking, will see so many regional students, so many first-in-family students, miss out.
In Bendigo, at the Bendigo La Trobe University campus, they are very worried about the impacts that higher fees will have on enrolments. They are also very worried about this government's complete inaction to support a sector that is in trouble. La Trobe University has already called for one round of voluntary redundancies. We lost 12 per cent of our staff at the Bendigo campus. They've now called for another round of redundancies.
Our regional campuses are at risk. They are cross-subsidised by income that is made in the metros by international students. Yet all we've seen from this government is not support for the university sector but attack after attack after attack. How will we lead ourselves out of this crisis, out of this pandemic, and how will we recover from this recession without a vibrant university sector, particularly in the regions and particularly with young people engaged?
Bonner Electorate: Seton College
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (13:56): I would like to take this opportunity to show parliament a petition from the Save Our Seton action group, or SOS. Last week I spoke in the House about the impending closure of Seton College, which provides support to students with learning difficulties and special needs. Current student Tayhlia Shaw set up this petition after hearing the devastating news, and it has now gained more than 5,500 signatures, with more community support growing every day. The Save our Seton community is hoping that this petition will put pressure on Brisbane Catholic Education to rethink their decision to close this school, which has provided hope, acceptance and happiness for so many young students who had struggled in mainstream schooling.
Tayhlia said her time at Seton College is the best she could have imagined, and, through her experience, she believes students are better supported with individualised learning. She said that, as a Seton student, she has learned resilience and understanding of her emotions. She's learned how to make friends and how to treat others with respect. Because of the school's good morals and extra support for students with special needs, she is desperate to see the school stay open so that future students may be given the opportunities that she has had to have the best outcomes from their education.
This petition is proof that the decision to close Seton College is unwelcomed by the community and unwarranted. I seek leave to present this document.
Leave granted.
Higher Education
Mr DICK (Oxley) (13:57): Our country is in the deepest recession in our nation's history, and this government is making it harder and more expensive for people to go to university, when we should be making it easier to get an education. The unemployment queues are longer than they've ever been. We've got over a million people unemployed in Australia and about 350,000 of them are young people. It would make sense at this time for the government to help young people get an education so they can build up their skills, but the Morrison government is telling young Australians that the same science degrees have less value and less importance than other degrees. Fees will more than double for some people studying four-year degrees from $27,000 to $58,000.
Every member of Scott Morrison's cabinet went to university.
The SPEAKER: I'd just say—
Mr DICK: But they don't think other people—
The SPEAKER: The member for Oxley will pause. I know he's got 90 seconds. He needs to refer to members by their correct titles—'the Prime Minister'.
Mr DICK: 'The Prime Minister', Mr Speaker—every member of his cabinet went to university, but they don't think anyone else should be able to go to university. And what we're seeing, time and time again, when unemployment is going through the roof, is that we're getting university degrees costing more and more. What Labor has always said, and what the member for Sydney has always said, is: with education comes jobs. It's time that this government started listening to young Australians instead of punishing them. More than ever, we need affordable, accessible higher education so that our kids can have good TAFE and good university degrees to put them in the future for all Australians.
COVID-19: Mental Health
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:59): For some people, 2020 has been the most stressful year of their lives. Thousands have lost their jobs or their businesses. Many of us have faced hard decisions and anxiety about the future.
I recently spoke with Caloundra Chamber of Commerce president Olivia Sainsbury, and she especially wanted us in this place to be aware that, in our local main streets, there are many small business owners whose mental health is truly suffering right now. I commend the government and the health minister on their significant action on mental health throughout this pandemic, including their recent investment in the Ahead for Business initiative, to expand services for small business owners and their staff.
However, one thing that has made this year's challenges harder than ever has been the isolation that many have experienced. Forced to spend weeks or months at home alone, many Australians have had little opportunity to connect with others and share their burdens. So, this year, it is more important than ever that we all get involved with R U OK? Day. On Thursday 10 September, I urge all Australians to reach out to someone and ask the question: 'Are you okay? Is there anything I can do to help you?' It isn't a lot of effort, but it can change a life. So, please, this year, stop, consider your friends, family and colleagues, and ask: 'Are you okay?'
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister: Today the Senate censured the minister for aged care, with the support of every crossbencher. Prime Minister, we've heard horror stories of neglect in aged care, including a resident with ants crawling in her open wounds and shocking accounts of sexual assaults, untreated infections and maggots in wounds. With the death of almost 500 aged-care residents, why is the Prime Minister arrogantly persisting with an aged-care minister who clearly should be sacked from his job?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:01): The many serious issues that require addressing in aged care, and particularly the unacceptable circumstances that occurred in a number of facilities, were the very reason the aged care royal commission was called in the first place. It is the very reason why the government, in particular, at the strong urging and recommendation of the minister for aged care, has continued to increase funding for aged care by over a billion dollars every year. It is the reason why the minister for aged care came to the cabinet and said we needed to do more on aged care in response the COVID-19 pandemic and did so in response to the plan that was first launched back in March and flagged in the COVID pandemic plan. That has now led to $1.5 billion and resources being brought to bear in response to the COVID pandemic. These coordinated efforts, both by the federal government and the state and territory governments, include the establishment of the Victorian Aged Care Response Centre. While there have been terrible impacts in aged care as a result of the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic all around the world, but particularly in Victoria most recently, this is something that Australians understand.
Australians understand that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on Australia and that no part of our community and no part of the facilities that Australians move in and out of on a daily basis are unaffected. And of course it's had an impact on aged care. What I can say is that, as a result of the government's efforts, despite the fact that there have been some terrible outcomes in a number of centres—and for that our condolences are expressed to those who are involved with family members and residents—the truth is that some eight per cent of facilities in total in Australia have been affected by COVID infections, both by staff and by residents themselves. That compares to 56 per cent in the United Kingdom. The actions that have been put in place by the government have ensured that we have been able to mitigate what has been a terrible blow as a result of COVID-19 across this country, including in the aged-care sector. And, despite the fact there have been a number of cases in facilities, the rest of the aged-care sector has benefited from the measures that have been put in place.
In relation to censures in the Senate, that is not a new thing. John Howard was censured by the Senate. Paul Keating was censured by the Senate. Gareth Evans was censured by the Senate. Graham Richardson was censured by the Senate—my good friend Graham. George Brandis was censured by the Senate.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's time has concluded, and the interjections can conclude as well. I call the member for Boothby.
COVID-19
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House how, in the midst of the global pandemic and COVID-19 recession, the Morrison government is acting to restore our economy, guarantee the essential services Australians rely on and keep Australians safe?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:05): I thank the member for Boothby for her question. She knows, as I'm sure all members in this chamber know, that these are incredibly challenging times for all Australians right across our country, wherever you live in our nation. The global pandemic and the COVID-19 global recession—from which Australia is not immune, as we learned yesterday with the release of the national accounts—are placing a significant call and strain on Australians across our country. They are placing a strain on our nation's governments. They're putting a strain on all of these things, and they've been putting a great strain on the resources of governments, including the federal government.
Our response is not to surrender to this. It's not to surrender one of the most important things to Australians, and it is not to surrender the responsibilities of our government in protecting those things that matter so much to Australians. Our response, as a government, has been to act—to take action to secure Australia's future in the midst of the biggest crisis this country has seen since the Second World War. That response has been immediately to seek to cushion that blow, to ensure that we stay on top of the virus to enable Australians to be able to move through this terrible crisis, to restore our economy and to ensure that an additional 700,000 Australians did not end up as unemployed, as a result of the early and unprecedented action taken by our government. But it's not just the economic response for now, but also into the future, with investment in training, with investment in infrastructure, with investment in the ease of doing business so businesses can employ Australians and invest more, and with investment in research and technology—the investments that are necessary to build Australia's capacity for the future as we recover. But it has also been to deliver on our guarantee for the essential services that Australians rely on. The record funding that we have committed for schools, for hospitals, for disability care, for aged care—all of these will be delivered despite the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 recession.
I want to assure Australians that, despite the uncertainty and anxiety of these times, this government will deliver on those essential services that you all rely on, particularly during this pandemic period. And we will honour our commitment to keep Australians safe from all those who would seek to do us harm, whether within our borders or without, or whether it's those who would seek to take advantage of the most vulnerable in our community. Whether it's children on the internet or those who would seek to do us harm from further afield, our government's commitment is to ensure that we keep Australians safe here, at home, behind our borders and beyond. (Time expired)
COVID 19: Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Australia is in the worst recession in almost a century. Does the Prime Minister take any responsibility for making the recession deeper and longer than it needs to be by cutting JobKeeper, cutting JobSeeker and cutting wages at the worst possible time?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:08): These are the most challenging times we've seen since the Second World War. The COVID-19 recession that we are now in the midst of is a result of the COVID-19 global pandemic. This seems to be a fact that escapes the attention of the Leader of the Labor Party in this country. The Leader of the Labor Party seems to think that what is occurring in our country now is the result of some sort of political action on behalf of the government. That defies the credibility of the Labor Party, to seem to be the only people in this country today who do not understand that there is a global pandemic with COVID-19.
It also defies credibility when the actions of the government have seen a commitment, not just for today but into the future, of more than $300 billion in economic supports—over 15 per cent of our economy. Not only did we see yesterday that, despite the terrible news of the impact on our economy of a seven per cent fall in the March quarter and a fall of just over six per cent through the year, other places that also confront this pandemic, whether it be Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, and the list goes on across the OECD—Sweden, all of them—were all far more damagingly hit in their economy. The other factor is that, in this country, not only have we sought successfully to cushion what is a terrible blow more so than other countries, but equally, through our coordinated management and fighting of this virus, our death rate as a result of that terrible virus is lower than in all of those countries.
So, whether it is on controlling the virus and suppressing it in this country as best we can, or cushioning the blow for Australians going through this crisis, Australians know that this government has showed up for them, and we will continue to show up for them. And we will continue to guarantee the essential services they rely on. We will ensure that we protect their safety, which is the first duty of a federal government. We will continue to do all of these things as we make our way through this crisis, which the Leader of the Labor Party seems to be oblivious to.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the next question, I've already spoken about the high level of interjections at the end of the first answer. There are repeated interjections from people who've been warned for interjecting all week. Given it's the last question time for a while, I'm not going to detain the House with lengthy explanations. If you have been asked not to interject or been warned for interjecting, if I've pulled you up for interjecting, consider yourself warned, and the next interjection will result in an ejection.
COVID-19: Regional Australia
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (14:11): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the Morrison-McCormack government's continued commitment to supporting regional Australia through 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 member for Cowper for his question. His Mid North Coast electorate is helping the nation recover from COVID-19. Of course, we're still very much in the midst of this global pandemic, and the COVID-19 recession is hurting our nation. It's hurting regional Australia. But regional Australia is not only poised to help the relief and recovery efforts; it's already doing the work—the hard work. Country people are resilient people, and there are none more resilient than those on the Mid North Coast in the member for Cowper's electorate.
When it comes to agriculture, as we heard from the minister for agriculture yesterday, even despite the drought, despite the bushfires and despite COVID-19, it grew from a $60 billion enterprise to $61 billion. Yesterday we heard the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia talking about how, in the June quarter, the resources and mining sector grew by 0.2 per cent. That is significant. That shows that regional Australia is helping the nation through this crisis. Regional Australia will always do that, because regional Australians are resilient, they are courageous and they know how to make a quid. And they know how to do that for and on behalf of this nation.
The Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program is an investment that the federal government has made directly to local government to help them beat COVID-19, to help them put jobs back into their local economies. In the member for Cowper's electorate there are five councils, and they are sharing in the $5.7 million: Bellingen, $594,000; Coffs Harbour, $1.3 million; Kempsey, $1.1 million; Nambucca, $768,000; and Port Macquarie-Hastings, $1.8 million. They will put that to good use. As part of the 1,000 projects already agreed upon and already approved, we're going to see in coming weeks high-vis workers, and excavators pushing dirt around. That means local jobs in the Mid North Coast. That means local procurement for those brave, hardworking small businesses which, honestly, haven't seen in that area too many COVID-19 cases, and yet they have been hit hard by the COVID-19 crisis. We are ensuring, across the nation, the delivery of $100 billion of infrastructure over the next decade. Regional Australia is enjoying the benefits of that—85,000 jobs across the nation. The Pacific Highway Woolgoolga to Ballina section will be completed in coming weeks. That's going to save travel time for people. It's also going to save lives. I know how hard the member for Cowper has fought for the Pacific Highway, and we will certainly look forward to that opening. (Time expired)
JobKeeper Payment
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. Thousands of businesses are only surviving because of JobKeeper. Why is the Prime Minister cutting support to struggling businesses all over Australia this month?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:15): The reality is JobKeeper is a remarkable program. They're not my words; they're the words of the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Today it's supporting more than 3½ million Australian workers and around one million Australian businesses. It was established based on being a temporary program, a targeted program, a scalable program and one that could flex depending on the demand. It's the expectation from Treasury—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I hope the member for Rankin heard what I said before. Just to make it clear: he has been warned about interjecting more than anyone else in this chamber.
Mr FRYDENBERG: I haven't had a question from the member for Rankin since June.
The SPEAKER: Just answer the question.
An opposition member: [by video link] You haven't answered one for 12 months!
Mr FRYDENBERG: The reality is he's not interested in this issue. We have 3½ million Australians who are receiving JobKeeper. The program has been costed at $101 billion and the program is tapering over time. Even the member for Rankin himself has said we should be looking at a kind of tapering.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr FRYDENBERG: The member for Grayndler interjects. This is what the member for Grayndler said on the Today show about JobKeeper:
… there will need to be some form of tapering off.
Karl Stefanovic asked the question of the member for Grayndler:
What does that look like?
The member for Grayndler replied:
What it will look like is going down over a period of time …
That is the reality of what is occurring with the expansion and the extension of JobKeeper. Originally legislated for six months, it's now going for an additional six months. At $1,500 currently, it goes to $1,200 in the December quarter and it goes down to $1,000 in the March quarter. The reality is this program is supporting millions of Australian workers right around the country. It's a remarkable program. It continues to do a remarkable job and it helps to keep Australians in work.
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the member for Indi, I say to those members who are remoting in today for question time—I see none on the government side; I see them on the opposition side—that obviously interjections remotely are equally disorderly. It's hard to identify who they are from, although one member looks particularly guilty. I just will say: the standing orders apply and, if it persists, not only will I enforce the standing orders but you might find yourself disconnected.
Economy: Regional Tourism
Dr HAINES (Indi) (14:18): My question is to the Treasurer. Yesterday's national accounts are seismic. This is the deepest economic downturn since 1945. In the first half of 2020, Indi lost 1.6 million local tourism visitors. That's 95 per cent of business as usual. Visitor expenditure fell by around $640 million, and over 6,000 jobs were disrupted or lost. Other than JobKeeper, what is the Treasurer doing to strengthen and invest in regional tourism infrastructure, accommodation and hospitality?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:19): I thank the member for Indi for her question and acknowledge that, across her electorate and indeed across Australia, it is a really difficult time for regional tourism businesses, with the fact that they've been hit by drought, fire, flood and now a global pandemic. I know in the member's electorate there are some terrific ski fields. Those businesses have lost a full ski season as a result of the COVID pandemic, and many jobs have been lost in the honourable member's electorate. The member mentioned JobKeeper, and there are 4,700 businesses in her electorate who are receiving it. In addition to JobKeeper, there is the cash flow boost and other support for apprentices. That is supporting small businesses right across the electorate.
We've heard from Margy Osmond, the CEO of the Tourism and Transport Forum, that the government has heard the voice of the tourism industry loud and clear. But, as the honourable member knows, we've also put in place a $1 billion COVID relief and recovery fund, which is supporting regional communities and industries, particularly those in the tourism sector. There has been regional airlines funding assistance of $100 million, which has been underwriting air service providers to ensure connectivity for regional and remote committees. There has been regional air network assistance of $198 million. There has been crisis relief of $10 million for regional arts. There has been support for Indigenous visual arts centres. There has been a temporary waiver of the environmental management charge for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. There has been support for national parks. There has been support for tourism, with $12 million worth of fee waivers. There has been support for agricultural shows, with a commitment of $36 million. There have been a host of measures that the Morrison-McCormack government has undertaken to support regional tourism.
COVID-19: Economy
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (14:21): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how yesterday's national account figures show the resilience of the Australian economy during this global COVID-19 recession?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:21): I thank the member for Wentworth for his question and acknowledge his experience as a distinguished diplomat for Australia abroad as our ambassador to Israel before coming to this place. The national account numbers yesterday revealed the real devastation COVID-19 is having on the Australian economy. We had a seven per cent fall in GDP for the June quarter. That is the single largest fall that Australia has ever recorded. The single biggest contributor to that fall in GDP over the June quarter was the fall in consumption. We saw a reduction in consumption on transport services of 80 per cent. We saw a reduction in consumption at hotels, cafes and restaurants of 60 per cent. The reason behind this fall was the health restrictions that were put in place as a result of COVID-19. The Australian way of life was effectively put on hold through the June quarter. This is the impact of a once-in-a-century pandemic on our national economy.
In response to COVID-19, we put in place a comprehensive range of measures, some $314 billion of support—from the JobKeeper program; to the cash flow boost; to the $750 payments to millions of Australians who are on income support; to the $550 coronavirus supplement; to billions of dollars of incentives to businesses to invest in plant, machinery and other equipment to help them be more productive as businesses and indeed to help us be more productive as a nation.
The fact that we went into this crisis from a position of economic strength gave us the financial firepower to respond. But the impact of our $340 billion worth of measures has also seen 700,000 jobs being saved. The advice of Treasury is that the unemployment rate would be five percentage points higher today but for the economic support that we have provided as a country and also that, as a result of this economic support, the severity in the fall in GDP that we saw yesterday was not as great as was seen in other countries. But the road ahead will be hard, the road ahead will be long. But there is hope for the future. There is a light at the end of the tunnel, and the Morrison government is absolutely committed to getting Australians back to work.
COVID-19: Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. Australians are going through the toughest period of their working lives. One million are unemployed and another 400,000 will join them before Christmas, and thousands of businesses are on the verge of collapse. Why is the Prime Minister cutting JobKeeper, cutting JobSeeker and cutting wages, at the very time that Australia has plunged into the worst recession in almost a century?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:25): The government has committed to and already provided unprecedented, record support to ensure that we keep as many Australians in jobs as possible, keep as many businesses open as possible and ensure that, as we go through this terrible crisis, we are training more Australians, particularly in the skills areas, with the JobTrainer program, a billion dollar partnership with the states and territories, pulled together in a matter of weeks, that will see 340,000 additional training places available not just to young Australians but to Australians who have found themselves working in some sectors that they know, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, will be under great strain for some period. That's why those who are working in the aviation industry as flight attendants are now training to be aged-care workers. As we speak, people are changing sectors, changing industries, getting trained, adjusting for the COVID-19 pandemic, so that they can get the best support of all, and that is the support that comes directly from their own efforts, their own initiative and their own enterprise. That is what our plan is based on.
Our plan for the economy, which we're putting in place—whether it's ensuring our workplaces are cooperative and flexible, ensuring that the infrastructure program enables $10 billion to be brought forward, or ensuring that our manufacturing industries have access to the affordable, reliable energy they need, as we've seen wholesale prices on gas and other things fall, all of these plans are based on the enterprise and the efforts and the initiative of Australians. And those Australians are looking forward to an economy that doesn't require JobKeeper and other income supports to sustain it. That's why JobKeeper will be necessary now, but in the future it is not our plan for it to be required. And that is why the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer and others made the point—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney!
Mr MORRISON: that it is important that our economy transitions away from JobKeeper and the higher levels of welfare support that have been necessary. But we must be sure that the supports we put in place to get Australians through don't become a barrier to them and don't become a barrier to those businesses to be able to attract employees, whether it is in regional areas or metropolitan areas or other parts of the country. We will continue to provide those supports. We are extending JobKeeper for a further six months, ensuring that the JobSeeker payment, with the COVID supplement, is at record levels, as it continues to be, out through the end of this month. Then it will go through the next phase and then there will be further phases. Those opposite see the COVID pandemic as some sort of opportunity to lock in endless income support. And that is not a responsible thing. Their position— (Time expired)
COVID-19: Health Care
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is supporting Australians by continuing to guarantee the provision of essential health services and medicines through the COVID-19 pandemic?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Macarthur, I've just appointed you to the Speaker's panel; that means you're not allowed to interject, at all—full stop, ever again! That's one of the reasons I appointed you!
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 Reid, who comes to this place with a great history of advocacy and practice in mental health.
Over the course of the pandemic, we've continued to invest in mental health, not just for the pandemic but as part of a two-thirds increase for mental health over the life of this government—new funding for aged-care support in mental health; new funding for headspace; new funding for eating disorder clinics; and new funding for adult mental health clinics around the country.
On top of that, we've also struck, with our pharmacists, a new five-year agreement—in the middle of the pandemic—an extra $1.5 billion which will help with the guarantee of 200 million PBS scripts a year. In addition to that, we've also been able to strike a $131.4 billion once-in-five-year hospital agreement which has, at its heart, the funding of increased services, with an extra $31.4 billion for our hospitals but also the innovative role of Hospital in the Home, especially with regard to mental health and orthopaedic recovery.
All of these things have occurred whilst we've been battling and managing the COVID outbreak. We know that in a global pandemic, at almost 26 million people, we have seen eight out of eight states and territories initially succeed, flatten that curve and beat that virus. And now, with seven out of eight—and one state still challenged with lockdowns, curfews and five-kilometre movement limits—we are making progress.
Throughout that time, we closed the borders on 1 February to help protect and save Australians. We took action which was early. We put in place a testing regime which has been recognised as one of the broadest and most accurate in the world by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. We put in place a tracing regime which around the country has been successful, and we pumped support into Victoria through the ADF to assist them to bring their standards up to the rest of the country. That's been an immensely important part of helping to recover from the Victorian crisis.
In addition to that, the work that we're doing has seen us invest in over 28.2 million telehealth consultations, a system created to protect Australians, a system which has then been built upon with $1.5 billion going in to support Australians in aged care. What we've done with our hospitals is a public hospitals agreement and a private hospitals agreement, specifically for COVID, as well as surge workforce. All of these things have put Australia in one of the strongest places in the world. I want to thank our health workers and honour our health workers, and we will continue to fight to protect the health of Australians.
JobKeeper Payment
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (14:32): [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. Lisa is a part-time tutor with two kids. What is the Prime Minister's response to Lisa, who says, 'We don't have any savings, and my partner is unwell and unable to seek work to assist with bills. I am so afraid of what will happen to my family if the proposed change to JobKeeper rate goes through.'
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:32): The income supports that the government is providing continue for JobKeeper until the end of March; and the JobSeeker arrangements continue to the end of December. As I indicated when I announced these matters with the Treasurer, it is most likely that we will seek to extend those further. However, we will of course consider how we do that closer to that time, because what is very important in the COVID-19 pandemic is that you make decisions based on the best possible information that you have at that time. For JobKeeper, it's important to provide a longer lead time on where those payments are going so businesses and others can be aware of those changes and enable their arrangements to support those changes as they come into effect.
For those who have been on JobKeeper there will be firms that, thankfully, no longer need JobKeeper after the end of September. They will no longer be down that 30 per cent on turnover, and their businesses will be going forward. As a result of that six-month support at that record level, that will mean that those who have been on JobKeeper, many of whom are on zero hours—and it is our hope that those businesses no longer have any need of JobKeeper—will be able to go forward with even further hours.
For those whose incomes are reduced, that's what JobSeeker is there for. JobSeeker will continue to be there to support their incomes as those types of benefits have always been designed to do. It is at a higher level and it also has an income-earning threshold of $300. This will effectively almost triple an income area, which enables people to earn up to $300 as well as receiving, and they can qualify for JobSeeker payments on top of that. That is why JobKeeper and JobSeeker work together. That is why we are continuing to extend JobKeeper and JobSeeker, to provide that support through this coronavirus period.
Now, it is true that seven out of eight states and territories have had great success in suppressing the virus and that is enabling their economies to move forward again. I was talking to Premier McGowan this morning and he was telling me about what's occurring in Western Australia. And I welcome that, because whether it's Western Australian businesses or New South Wales businesses, or how any of the other states and territories are going—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: We did, actually! I welcome that. But those areas, like Victoria, which are doing it much tougher will obviously have a greater share of the JobKeeper and Jobseeker support because that is how the program is designed.
We will transition those programs, because that's the responsible thing to do, but we will ensure that those programs of support remain there for those, like the person you have indicated, who continue to need them. (Time expired)
Education: Funding
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for Education. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is continuing to guarantee education funding throughout the COVID pandemic?
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (14:36): I thank the member for Higgins for her question, and I thank her for her passion for education.
For those who didn't hear the member for Higgins's speech in this chamber last week, she spoke about Grace Halifax, a young grade 3 student who, because of what's going on in Victoria has been doing 'ABC of coding' lessons for other students. Over 200 students have come onto those Zoom lessons taking place on the ABC of coding. It's an inspirational story, and well done to the member for Higgins for her support for Grace.
Guaranteeing essential services is a hallmark of the Morrison government, especially when it comes to education. You can look at what we've done for child care: $8.9 billion in 2021, growing to nearly $10 billion in 2022-23. There is the 3.2 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket expenses as part of our package; 72 per cent of parents pay no more than five dollars per day in day-care centres and 24 per cent pay no more than two dollars per hour. Our COVID-19 measures have meant that 99 per cent of childcare services remain open right across the nation. Once again, I thank those early childhood educators for the role they've played throughout this pandemic. We've also guaranteed preschool funding again: $450 million in 2020, growing to $453 million in 2021. That brings total preschool spending by the coalition government to $3.2 billion.
There is also record funding for schools: $21.79 billion in 2020. That's part of a record $314.2 billion investment in schools over 2018 to 2029—an increase of 63.2 per cent per student. And our spending is growing fastest for state schools, at around 6.4 per cent per student each year from 2018 to 2023, compared to five per cent per student growth for the non-government sector.
And thanks to our support, and in working cooperatively with the states and territories, every state and territory, bar Victoria, has face-to-face teaching occurring in the classroom. Our hope is that when Victoria comes to term 4 that we'll once again see that face-to-face teaching occurring there. We all know how important that is for the children, especially those from low-SES backgrounds, those children with a disability and those from rural and remote areas.
We are guaranteeing essential services when it comes to education under the stewardship and the leadership of the Prime Minister. (Time expired)
JobKeeper Payment
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (14:39): My question is to the Prime Minister. Pauline is a part-time retail worker and a mum to three kids. Pauline says about JobKeeper: 'The $1,500 is enough for me to survive on, just, including rent and food.' Why is the Prime Minister making it harder for Pauline to pay her rent and feed her kids, by cutting JobKeeper in the middle of the worst recession in almost a century?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:39): I thank the member for her question. The reason we have extended JobKeeper is that the coronavirus pandemic, particularly in Victoria, is extending. In many other states and territories, businesses are reopening, and we want to see more of that—those businesses being able to get back on their feet again and being able to restore the hours that have been lost in those other states and territories. But I remember being in this place earlier this year, and those opposite were actually attacking us—the Labor Party were saying we were paying part-time workers too much under JobKeeper. They were saying that paying them $1,500 was wrong and we should be paying them less. This is what I'm becoming confused about with the Labor Party. The leader before was interjecting on me, and he said I had contradicted myself.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: He's just said it again. He said I had contradicted myself. No. I was just outlining the completely competing positions that the Leader of the Labor Party has had when it comes to JobKeeper and JobSeeker. He says it needs to transition and then he says it needs to keep going on. The each-way bet that the Leader of the Opposition has on this issue means he is a double-minded man. He is not someone you can rely on, because he can't hold a consistent position from one end of the day to the other. This is not someone that Australians can rely on. This is not someone that people can trust. Australians have worked this out about the Leader of the Opposition. They know he'll say whatever he has to—
The SPEAKER: I just say to the Prime Minister—
Mr MORRISON: to keep himself where he is.
COVID-19: Disability Services
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services. Can the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is guaranteeing essential services for the disability sector during the COVID-19 recession?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services ) (14:42): I thank the member for Mackellar for his question and for his advocacy for those with disability in his seat—1,646 participants that I know he is passionate and caring for.
Despite all of the issues we're going through with COVID-19, the Morrison government continues to deliver for NDIS participants, acting to ensure that the essential services that people require continue during a very challenging time. Despite the conditions we're in, the latest quarterly report shows that the NDIA has now driven significant improvements to ensure participants are receiving timely supports. There are now a staggering 400,000 Australians in the scheme. Despite the circumstances of the last few months, 28,000 people entered the scheme in the last quarter alone. That's something we as a nation should be proud of. More than 175,000 Australians are receiving supports for the very first time. For the first time in their life, they're receiving some sort of support from the state. As more participants have joined the scheme, we've continued to improve the timeliness and the responsiveness. In June this year, an access decision took 10 days, four times faster than 12 months ago, and it only took six days for access if you were a child aged from zero to six, seven times faster than 12 months ago. The average number of days to receive a first plan is 67 days, a 50 per cent improvement from 12 months ago, and for children it is even quicker: 42 days.
Again, despite COVID-19, $5 billion was paid to deliver support to NDIS participants in the June quarter—$5 billion over a tumultuous three months in our nation's life, to ensure that services are there for needy Australians, a staggering 86 per cent increase on the same time last year. We are absolutely committed as a government to providing support to Australians—hence the announcement of landmark reforms last week. We've supported, or supported in principle, all of the Tune recommendations, and that includes our commitment we made at the election for a participant service guarantee to legislate time frames within the NDIA for decisions on access, undertaking planning and completing planning reviews—KPIs, if you like, to ensure accountability for Australians seeking support. Over the next six months, in line with public health advice, we'll continue to work in close collaboration with Australians with disability and with the sector to implement these reforms.
This is a world-leading reform. It is a national endeavour. And, as we move towards 500,000 participants in the scheme, can I thank everyone who has been involved in delivering what is such essential, necessary support to such wonderful Australians, who need it every day.
COVID-19: Disability
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (14:45): [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. How many Australians with a disability have been infected with COVID-19?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services ) (14:45): As I said in a press release I put out last week, the government's committed to providing updates on numbers every day in terms of Australians with disability who have been impacted by COVID-19. I can report to the House that, since March 2020, cumulatively, 102 participants have tested positive to COVID-19, and currently there are 23 active cases. Numbers will continue to be put out every day to ensure all Australians are up to date.
The SPEAKER: The minister might just pause. The member for Maribyrnong is seeking to raise a point of order?
Mr Shorten: [by video link] Yes. I didn't ask how many NDIS participants had been infected. I asked how many Australians with a disability had been infected. The NDIS participants are a cohort, or a smaller group. The number of people with a disability, including those in aged care, is larger, logically.
The SPEAKER: The member for Maribyrnong has raised his point of order on relevance. The minister.
Mr ROBERT: If I can just inform the House that there's a survey of disability and aged care that comes out, done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It reports that 4.4 million Australians have a disability of some sort. As I've just explained to the House, those with permanent and significant disability are in the NDIS and the numbers I've just given, which are reported daily to ensure accountability.
In terms of numbers of people with a disability as a whole, it would require the states and territories knowing who every single Australian is who replied to that survey saying they have a disability. It would require those Australians to self-report in some way to the states and territories, and then for those states and territories to report them.
Mr Shorten: [by video link] Have you even asked?
Mr ROBERT: If the member is suggesting that that onus, that responsibility, should be put on the states and territories, then I would suggest that the member speak to the states and territories and ask them to do that. The Commonwealth responsibility is to the NDIS, a responsibility we take seriously, which is why I can report with great accuracy the daily numbers, why I can report exactly where we're up to—why we can report on everything. But in terms of all Australians with any disability—
Mr Shorten interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Maribyrnong has had his point of order.
Mr ROBERT: that is a question, quite rightly, for the states and territories, who have the responsibility, within all agreements, to care for Australians with a disability who are not in the NDIS.
COVID-19: Cybersafety
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the Morrison government's commitment to keeping Australians safe during the COVID-19 pandemic and recession, and—so importantly—the steps being taken to protect our Aussie kids?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:48): I thank the honourable member for his question. I want all Australian families to know that the Morrison government are doing whatever we can to provide support to you. As the health minister pointed out earlier, the government took decisions very early on to close our borders to make sure that we could protect Australians and keep COVID from our country for as long as possible.
But we've also made a number of other decisions to help Australian families stay safe in the course of this global pandemic. We have taken the decision to invest a significant amount of money in the Australian Federal Police and other agencies within the Home Affairs portfolio, to identify individuals who are preying on children and families whilst they're spending more time online. I've reported on this to the House before, but I can provide an update. There has been additional warrant activity by the Australian Federal Police and the Queensland police and other agencies in recent days.
But there is a case that I can provide some detail on, and that is in relation to a 43-year-old Gold Coast man who was arrested by the Brisbane Joint Anti Child Exploitation Team. That individual had seized from him four mobile phones. It's alleged that that individual was involved in sharing child abuse material, images of young boys and girls, through both Snapchat and MiWi.
The fact is that these predators will work online. They will provide images. They will share images with other paedophiles. They will seek to groom young children, boys and girls, pretending that they are of a similar age. They understand the language and the nuance of what's required to have a conversation with children of a very young age, and ultimately, in some cases, tragically, as we've seen, they can lure those children into a physical meet.
So the work of the agencies—in particular, the ACCCE in Brisbane but also the AFP and the QPS—in relation to this investigation really needs to be noted by the House. It underscores the fact that we will do whatever it takes to make sure, as a government, we are investing in our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to keep Australians safe. We want to make sure families hear very clearly the message that you need to have a full and frank conversation with your children about making sure that the appropriate protections are in place when they're online. If they are fearful that their children have been put in a compromised position then we want them, please, to contact Crime Stoppers or to contact the police, because the ACCCE has a specialist expertise in working with NGOs and others that can provide support. This is a No. 1 priority of the Prime Minister and, I know, all of us in this chamber and all decent people across Australian society.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:51): on indulgence—Indeed, the minister got that absolutely right: this parliament's absolutely united in doing whatever we can to stamp out that abhorrent practice, and it is a good use of this parliament that the minister just made to inform parents about the dangers and the importance of making sure that their children are aware of what they need to do should there be one of these evil predators engaging with them in some form online.
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Natural Disasters
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. My community has been hit hard by drought, by bushfire, by floods and now by COVID. Why did the Prime Minister fail to spend a single cent from an annual $200 million recovery and mitigation fund last financial year for my bushfire affected community?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:52): I thank the member for her question. I commend her on her first speech in this place and her first question here in this place and, of course, on her election to this parliament.
What I can confirm to the member is the support provided in the Eden-Monaro electorate across the various programs that the government has run to support people through this bushfire crisis in Bega Valley, Eurobodalla, Queanbeyan-Palerang, Snowy Monaro and Snowy Valleys, whether it's through the primary producer grants—through which there have been commitments of over $9 million to the Bega Valley area, over $5 million to Eurobodalla, in the Queanbeyan-Palerang area over $2.3 million, for Snowy Monaro $2.8 million and for Snowy Valleys some $17 million—or, importantly, the small business recovery grants, which the member will be very familiar with. With those small business recovery grants, there are 236 recipients approved for that program in Bega Valley, and that's some $6.2 million of support; in Eurobodalla, some $8.6 million of support; in Queanbeyan-Palerang, $604,000; in Snowy Monaro $739,000; in Snowy—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order.
Mr Burke: On direct relevance, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister acknowledged at the start of the answer it being the first question from the member. It asks about a specific fund, and the Prime Minister's yet to refer to that fund.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister's obviously giving some context, but I do take the point of order. But I think he's been entitled to say what he's said up until now. Then he needs to either bring himself to the substance of the question or start to wind up. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The minister will add further to my answer. Whether it's on the concessional loans, the disaster recovery payment or the disaster recovery allowance right across Australia, but particularly in the member's electorate, the government has been swift to provide this support. I ask the minister to add to my answer.
The SPEAKER: Before I call the minister, for clarity, the reason why I allowed that for more than a minute was the preamble; it was very broad—it mentioned drought, floods, bushfires and COVID.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (14:55): I thank the member for her question and her leadership of her community as the local mayor.
The ERF is a $200 million dividend that will be paid each year, when required. There are two tranches of that. There's $150 million for extraordinary recovery payments. That will not be used, because we have put in over $2 billion in terms of recovery. The advice that I got from the director-general of Emergency Management Australia was that, with the programs that we put in in response to the fires—that $2 billion plus—there is no need to spend that $150 million.
There's $50 million set aside for preparedness. Emergency Management Australia will be going out to the community in the coming weeks and talking to the community around preparedness—making sure that we build back better. Your community and those communities that are affected right around the country will have the opportunity to invest and take advantage of that $50 million. We will continue to use every means possible in working with those communities and state governments, to be able to partner with us. That's why it's been an approach not Canberra led but locally led, and we are working with state governments to make sure that $200 million will again be available next financial year if it is required. It will continue to be used, and we will continue to make sure that the $2 billion—of which we have got $1.7 billion out, and we thought we'd only get $500 million out by 30 June—is well ahead of budget. There are results that are being seen on the ground today.
COVID-19: National Security
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (14:56): My question is to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney please update the House on the Morrison government's continued commitment during the COVID-19 pandemic and recession to ensuring Australia's national security, including through preventing terrorist attacks?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:57): I thank the member for his question. As the member is aware, our government's first and foremost priority is keeping Australian's safe. As the Minister for Home Affairs noted, even during this period where, naturally enough, the attention is focused on public health, terrible events such as online exploitation go on unabated. The threat of terrorism in Australia during this very difficult COVID-19 period, sadly, remains very real and very much with us. The terrorist threat was elevated to 'probable' in 2014, and it remains at that level to this day. That is why, as a government, since 2013, we've passed 19 tranches of national security legislation laws that are keeping Australians safe. Indeed, our excellent security agencies have been overwhelmingly successful, with 18 major counterterrorism disruptions and 110 people being charged.
What we now face is a somewhat new and additional and significant challenge, because we now see a large cohort of convicted terrorist offenders that were subject to the operations in full swing post 9/11 and post the Bali bombings due to be released following the expiry of their sentences. Already this year, we've seen nine terrorist offenders be released, and there are another 12 convicted terrorist offenders who are due for release over the next five years. Regretfully, notwithstanding best efforts, many of those individuals continue to hold on to extremist ideology and they pose a very significant risk to the Australian community. You need only look at the horrific 2019 London Bridge attacks to see that, when individuals of this type are released into the community, they can pose a very great threat.
As a government, we have been very methodically building a framework to manage the threat that's posed by these types of convicted terrorist offenders. In 2016, we introduced the high-risk terrorist offender regime, which ensures continuing detention. In 2019, we passed laws that will keep terrorists in prison for longer by ensuring that there's a presumption against parole or bail for all offenders who pose a threat.
Today, we introduced the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2020. That is the latest and very important step in building this framework of protection. The legislation introduced this morning means that high-risk convicted terrorists will face even tighter controls when eventually released from prison under what is now going to be a new intensive supervision regime. What will be known as extended supervision orders will be in this regime. They will ensure that terrorist offenders are subject to unfettered close supervision for years after their release. The regime provides for the broadest possible range of controls to be applied to these offenders, such as requiring schedules of movements, participation in rehabilitation or intervention programs, and compliance with directions given by police; and they will allow police officers to search premises. I'll finally note to the House that, very importantly, there are transitional measures that mean that six offenders already in the community would be eligible to move onto this scheme.
Prime Minister
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:00): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister's failure on aged care is costing lives. His failure on the economy is costing jobs. When will the Prime Minister take responsibility for the consequences of his actions?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:00): Once again, I take every responsibility for my tasks and for what I swore an oath to uphold every single day that I walk into this building, into my office or in any part of this great country. That's what I do every single day. I know the responsibilities that we have, which is why we have acted—whether it's on JobKeeper, on JobSeeker, on the work we've done on skills, on the support we've put into our health system to protect Australians from this virus and to work together with other parts of this country, particularly state and territory governments. And I'll continue to do that.
But I won't say to the Australian people that our country is immune from the global pandemic, and I won't say that we are immune from the global pandemic recession. This is having a terrible impact on this country. Each and every day we will work to ensure that we mitigate that impact as much as we possibly can. And, whether it's on the health side or it's on the economic side, it would be unfair of the Leader of the Opposition not to acknowledge that Australia is faring better than almost every other developed country in the world on these measures and the impact of this virus in Australia.
It may not be convenient for the Leader of the Opposition that I point to that fact. He might be unaware of the global pandemic that has hit this country and has hit every other country—and there's a reason for that. I go back to February of this year. On 27 February this year, I stood up in the Prime Minister's courtyard and I made this announcement:
… based on the expert medical advice we've received, there is every indication that the world will soon enter a pandemic phase of the coronavirus and as a result, we have agreed today and initiated the implementation of the Coronavirus Emergency Response Plan.
I said:
… while the WHO is yet to declare the nature of the coronavirus and it's moved towards a pandemic phase, we believe that the risk of a global pandemic is very much upon us …
In this chamber, at almost that exact time, the Leader of the Opposition accused me of standing up to make such a statement as trying to distract from the issues of the day. He didn't understand the pandemic then; he doesn't understand it now. He got up at the Press Club the other day and gave us a plan for February—in August! This Leader of the Opposition got up at the Press Club the other day, he talked about what his plan was for the government to do in February and he announced it in August. I'm not going to go into a time tunnel to find out what we should be doing today. He'll probably tell me next March! This Leader of the Opposition does not grasp this crisis. That's why he can't be trusted. (Time expired)
Defence Industry
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Defence Industry. Will the minister outline to the House how, despite the COVID-19 recession, the Morrison government is continuing to deliver on its commitment to bolster our national defence capabilities?
Ms PRICE (Durack—Minister for Defence Industry) (15:03): It's always a pleasure to get a question from the member for Stirling. I would like to acknowledge his service to our nation and also thank him for his passion and interest in the defence industries.
The Morrison government is investing a record $270 billion in our defence capability. Despite the issues we've all experienced, across our nation, with COVID-19, our plan to invest in defence is guaranteeing our defence capabilities now and into the future. That's what our investment of $270 billion is all about. It's clear that our government's JobKeeper plan has helped to keep the wheels of defence industry moving, and that has been welcomed. Our investment is backing the local tradies and the local companies, especially in regional Australia. Again, this is very welcome.
In Victoria, JobKeeper has been important to support those construction contractors who are working on defence contracts. But don't take my word for it, Mr Speaker. This is what the national CEO of Master Builders Australia, Denita Wawn, said recently: 'JobKeeper is critical for the building and construction sector and continues to be a lifeline for defence construction contractors and subcontractors in Victoria as their operations are severely hampered by the crushing stage 4 lockdown.'
Last week, the Prime Minister and I announced a $1 billion defence package for our defence industry. Included in that $1 billion was a $300 million package to support those bases around the country, with more work for estate and infrastructure—predominately in regional areas but, in particular, with a focus on those bushfire affected regions.
We've done everything we can to get the cash out the door quickly. Defence industry knows that this government has its back. We've paid some 200,000 invoices since March—almost $14 billion in invoices—and, of that, nearly $11 billion of invoice value has been paid early. Defence industry knows that we have its back and that together we're making a significant difference.
In the time remaining, I would like to thank Australia's defence industry. We've had a number of challenges over the period of COVID-19. We've done everything we can to support them. Together with Defence, we have overcome many, many challenges to ensure that we continue to develop our nation's defence capability.
Economy
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:06): My question is to the Prime Minister. Australia is in the worst recession in almost a century. This week, the Prime Minister cut JobKeeper, cut JobSeeker and cut wages. This hurts families, households, businesses and workers. There are millions of them. Isn't this the worst possible time to cut the support that Australians need? Won't it make the Morrison recession longer and deeper?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (15:07): I don't know why the member for Rankin is smiling at the time of a COVID-19-induced recession.
Dr Chalmers: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin will resume his seat. As difficult as it may seem for him, he can only raise a point of order on relevance. He can't have a tit-tat argument about—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Okay. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr FRYDENBERG: Mr Speaker, he has a glass jaw and the fact is that he was smiling. Now, $42½ billion has already gone out through JobKeeper to Australian workers. More than 3½ million Australian workers and around one million Australian businesses are benefiting from JobKeeper. The honourable member knows that JobKeeper is a remarkable program. If he's not going to take my word for it, these are the words of the governor of the Reserve Bank: 'a remarkable program that is helping to save jobs'. As I've said to this House, Treasury has estimated that some 700,000 Australian jobs have been saved by JobKeeper. Without JobKeeper, the unemployment rate would be five percentage points higher than it is today.
The member for Rankin should listen to his own previous words. He said, in relation to JobKeeper, that we should be looking at a kind of tapering. He said that on ABC's The Business. Then the member for Grayndler said on the Today show that we will need a tapering off. He was asked: 'What does that mean?' He said: 'It will go down over time.' The member for Grayndler said about JobKeeper on the ABC's News Breakfast:
We obviously do need to shift away. These mechanisms won’t be in place forever, …
The member for Grayndler then went on John Laws radio and said of JobKeeper:
… we'll need some sort of a transition.
The member for Grayndler, the Leader of the Opposition, then had a doorstop and said in relation to JobKeeper: … we need a transition …
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer can resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: I'm pretty sure that I wasn't the focus of the question, Mr Speaker. It was about the government.
The SPEAKER: The reason I'm giving a little bit more latitude is that what makes it more difficult is when the first 15 seconds—I won't even say 'of the question' because it wasn't a question—was a series of declarations and statements before the question came. On the point the Leader of the Opposition is making, I want him to understand how long preambles lead to a broader answer to the question, and it's certainly something I will discuss with the House when we return after budget week. It enables the Treasurer to compare and contrast to an extent, but he's just about done that, I think.
Mr FRYDENBERG: Mr Speaker, the point I was simply making, and this was the subject of the question, is that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Rankin have repeatedly called for a transition in the JobKeeper payment, and that is exactly what is occurring with an extension and expansion of this record spending program, at $101 billion.
JobKeeper has provided remarkable stories right around this country. It's helped keep people in work and helped keep businesses in business. It's a key part of our JobMaker plan and it's a key part of our economic recovery.
COVID-19: Economy
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (15:11): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison government's plans in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and recession are working to suppress the virus, reopen our economy and deliver Australia's economic recovery?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:11): I thank the member for her question. As this parliament rises today the challenges being faced by Australians each and every day, all around this country, wherever you live, will continue. The resolve of our government is to continue to stand by those Australians every single day and to continue to put in place the measures that have been necessary, that we have planned for and that we have been rolling out from that day back in February and even before that as we knew we were entering into this global pandemic.
The response that we've had, working with state and territory governments, has been first to seek to suppress the virus, and in seven out of eight states and territories in this country Australia has come together to be able to achieve that, and we need to continue to do that. Victoria is turning the corner, and we welcome that, and this weekend we hope to hear more about how Victoria will be able to go forward. I know Victorians will be looking forward to that, and I will continue to work with the Premier to that end.
We will continue to suppress the virus. We will continue to build the capability to live with the virus, with the testing and the tracing capabilities and the other measures that are needed for us to live with that virus. But we will also continue to provide the support that Australians need to get through this most difficult of times—the income support that is necessary, the support to the businesses who've seen their doors close or have had their doors closed on them as a result of the actions that governments have had to take. It's very important for those businesses and all of their employees that we commit to ensure that we can get their doors open and we can get their Australians back in their jobs.
Australia was not meant to be closed. Australia was meant to be open. Australians want to see Australia become open, as the founding members of this place ensured it was from the outset, and Australia must become whole again. This is the way—that's what success looks like.
As we gather again tomorrow, I thank all the premiers and all the chief ministers for the work that they have done to become job makers with this government—job makers whether it's investing in infrastructure, job makers investing in skills and training, job makers by working together to get our economy open again. We need to come together.
We need to ensure that we are clear with Australians that we will seek to make Australia whole again by Christmas this year, that Australians can come together on the day in the way they always would at Christmas, to ensure that they can go and see their families and return home and spend that important time. 2021 is going to be a better year than 2020, and it's going to be a year in which we need to ensure we work together to make Australia that one great nation, again, that we were made to be.
On that point, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:14): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today, and full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee
Membership
The SPEAKER (15:15): I have received advice from the honourable the Prime Minister nominating a member to be a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:15): by leave—I move:
That in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Dr Aly be appointed a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Question agreed to.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:15): I move:
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:16): Mr Speaker, I support the motion and I want to use the opportunity that's there to thank you and the President of the Senate and the parliamentary staff who've made this sitting possible. I want to give a shout-out not to other members of parliament but to the families of members of parliament. Not everyone who is watching this broadcast would be conscious of the fact that families in Victoria—the whole of the family, not just the member of parliament—had to stay in self-isolation for two full weeks. That's a considerable sacrifice. Other members came to Canberra and self-isolated for two weeks. That includes Brendan O'Connor, the member for Gorton, and his daughter, Una. The member for Bendigo had the special privilege of being locked up with young Daisy for two weeks. It is a real sacrifice that many families of members of parliament make—well, that all families of members of parliament make—on both sides and on the crossbenches, and I do think that it's appropriate that we acknowledge their sacrifice in order to make this parliament function as effectively as it has during the last fortnight.
Question agreed to.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 5 of 2020-21
The SPEAKER (15:17): I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 5 of 2020-21, entitled Regulation of the National Energy Market: Australian Energy Regulator.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Coalition Government
The SPEAKER (15:17): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's failure to take responsibility for the significant challenges confronting the Australian people.
I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:18): This Morrison recession is the first in 30 years. For many Australians it will be an experience that they have never had before and that, indeed, no-one ever wants to have. We have one million unemployed already, but on top of that we'll have 400,000 more unemployed by Christmas. These figures don't really indicate what happens during a recession. What happens is that people lose their livelihoods. People will lose their homes. Families will break up. It will have a devastating impact on Australians, and, we know, on their families and their communities as well. During a recession, we see open shopfronts. We see a cumulative impact, which is why we have sought from the very beginning to limit the impact of what is an international incident—COVID.
But the fact is that this government has been dragged to any action that it's made. We know that this week we were due to have snapback according to the government. The reason we had to sit—this from a government that doesn't like parliamentary sittings—is that its legislation was all due to cut out in September. They said that all government support could be withdrawn. So, we haven't had snapback but we have had rollback. We have had cuts to JobKeeper, cuts to JobSeeker and cuts to the wages of low-income workers. We have had it at a time when the economy is struggling.
We don't argue that wage subsidies should be there forever. We have never done that. No-one has said that. But what we say is that you don't withdraw support at a time when the economy needs it, because it will make the recession deeper and longer. Deeper and longer will be the Morrison recession, because of the Prime Minister's arrogance.
The Prime Minister tomorrow will chair something called the national cabinet. It is not national and it is not a cabinet. There is more accuracy, I reckon, in the name the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. What we've seen over a period of many months is the Prime Minister being prepared to make big announcements, including border closures of states, when it's convenient, but then go out there and undermine it. What we then saw is it transition into a meeting where by the premiers tell each year what they're going to do and the Prime Minister announces it at the end—a non-participatory chairing of the so-called national cabinet. We have seen tough talk on borders, and today we got it again, this from the Prime Minister who let the Ruby Princess in and let Tony Abbott out—two mistakes when it comes to border closures in this country.
We saw a Prime Minister who spoke about early action. But let's be fair dinkum here. He supported closing the border from China but not from the United States and not from anywhere else. There was no testing when you arrived at Sydney or Melbourne airport—straight through, not even temperature testing let alone quarantines. He opposed school closures before they happened. He opposed lockdowns before they happened. He opposed Newstart being increased before JobSeeker came along. He called that 'unfunded empathy'. That was the term that this Prime Minister used when we were arguing the case. And on wage subsidies, the JobKeeper program, this Prime Minister said yesterday that he didn't hesitate. Oh, yes! AAP on 26 March headlined this on wage subsidies:
… Prime Minister Scott Morrison isn't having a bar of it.
We know that, because he said the same thing to us privately, in the private meetings that were being held. He said it everywhere. What we have is a Prime Minister whose only addiction and only consistency is that everything goes to marketing. We've had JobKeeper, JobSeeker, JobTrainer, JobMaker—everything gets tested. HomeBuilder—even though not a dollar has gone out on that program. It's more promo than Scomo for this Prime Minister. Remember the Defence ad at the height of the bushfires—couldn't pick up the phone to Shane Fitzsimmons and tell him that Defence was involved but they had the ad ready, complete with the 'donate to the Liberal Party' button.
Then we come to aged care, summarised in one word by the royal commissioners when they brought their interim report down: neglect. It still didn't result in any action, even though we saw in January and February internationally the need to get people out of nursing homes and into hospital if they were infected. We saw Newmarch and Dorothy Henderson Lodge—there were reports on them that were buried by this government. The bells were ringing, but no one was listening. As of yesterday 460 elderly Australians who have helped build this country have passed away—nursing home residents. We see ants and maggots in open wounds, we see untreated infections, we see shocking accounts of thousands of sexual assaults in aged-care facilities. News Corp's 360 campaign is showing more leadership than this Prime Minister and this government. And in the Senate today we saw Minister Colbeck censured. It's the first time that's happened in more than half a decade, and what did we see from this Prime Minister? He just dismissed it all. He said, 'Graham Richardson got censured.' You bet. And he resigned from the Senate, not just from the ministry. The fact is that this minister is not up to the job and he should go, but so should Minister Taylor, so should Minister Sukkar—they're all lining up at the door.
This is a government without vision. We know that from last year. The economy hasn't headed south just because of COVID. It's starting position was so weak. We had growth below trend. Every quarter that this man has been the Prime Minister and the Treasurer has occupied his spot has been below trend. We saw wages flatlining, productivity going backwards, consumer demand going backwards, business investment going backwards, every key economic indicator—that was the starting point. They're just occupying office rather than doing something with it. We've heard no plan for the economy. There's been no social policy advancement, there's no agenda on the environment and they don't have an energy policy. They are just there to stop us being there. That's what defines them: what they're against rather than what they're for. Tony Abbott, of course, said that. They don't even have the ticker to take on someone like the member for Hughes over the extraordinary comments that he's made about hydroxychloroquine—dangerous misadventure, inappropriate from any member of parliament.
What will be the legacy of this government? They may as well be a bunch of waxworks, a government designed by Madame Tussauds. Take a selfie with any one of them, put it on Instagram and try and convince some of your friends that they're real, that they are a government. There's no responsibility. There's no accountability. It's all politics. They're all announcement, no delivery. They're always there for the photo op, never there for the follow-up. We heard it today, graphically, from the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister when the member for Eden-Monaro asked her first question about a $200 million fund, annually in financial years, for bushfires—$150 million for recovery and $50 million for resilience. They said it wasn't necessary. There are people living in vans! The woman who the Prime Minister forced to shake his hand is living in a van with her young kid in Cobargo, but nothing's needed. What did they say? It'll be all available again next year. Next year they can make another promise and deliver not one cent.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (15:28): It's a great pleasure to follow the Leader of the Opposition. It's an opportunity I've been looking for for the last two weeks, and I've got it now.
We've heard a lot of noise from those opposite, and I'm sure there'll be more. I know you're keen to hear this, Mr Deputy Speaker O'Brien. It's a headline which will have some impact: 'Labor group's war on gas appliances'. I thought it was the Betoota Advocate until I looked closer. It wasn't from the Betoota, that great publication allegedly from Birdsville, out past Windorah; it's from The Australian, written by Greg Brown, and it's an exclusive. What is the great plan for recovery from those opposite? Labor's environmental action network is launching a campaign for people to junk their gas powered household appliances. They want a ban on the barbecue. Can you believe it? I'm so pleased it was the Leader of the Opposition in the MPI today. Can you imagine the Leader of the Opposition out there with the member for McMahon and the member for Maribyrnong? They're in their camouflage, they've got their hard hats on and sledgehammers in hand and they're tearing through the kitchen, looking for the gas powered appliances to take out—the gas powered hot water system, the barbecue. They want to put a ban on barbecues—no more gas! This is all they have in the opposition. Quite simply, we are serious about recovery in our economy; we are serious about the actions that we take.
The Leader of the Opposition is calling for resignations. Well, I have a resignation that the Leader of the Opposition should be asking for, and that is the resignation of Minister Bailey in Queensland. Minister Bailey should resign from his position in Queensland. He is misleading the people of my electorate; he is misleading the people of Queensland. In fact, the local member, Stephen Bennett, the member for Burnett, has called for Mr Bailey's resignation today. Do you know why? I'm sure you do, but I'll inform you anyway. In my electorate, in our region, we have delivered $173 million for a regional deal, including $10 million for a conveyor at the Bundaberg port. That is 100 per cent funded by the Commonwealth, with a contribution from Sugar Terminals Limited to deliver that conveyor system. Minister Bailey has come out and said he has only been asked about it in the last month. That is ridiculous. It was announced in April 2019. There has been six months of work between governments and between officials. All they have to do is approve it. The Queensland Labor government owns the port. The Queensland Labor government needs to provide the approval. Minister Bailey is out there saying that he knew nothing about it until recently and that the reason for the delay, the reason they don't want to approve this very important piece of infrastructure, is the GST. Can you believe it is the GST which is stopping the building of a conveyor at the Bundaberg port from being approved by the Queensland Labor government, from being approved by Minister Bailey?
I find this completely nonsensical. The Leader of the Opposition has spent 10 minutes railing against the government, when his own side has a plan for banning barbecues and a Queensland Labor minister is stopping jobs in our electorate—stopping those jobs cold—at a time when they are desperately needed. Our money is in the bank. It is ready. We are ready to deliver. We are ready for this project to move forward. I congratulate the local member, David Batt, the member for Bundaberg, and the member for Burnett, Stephen Bennett. Today they've launched a petition calling for this project to be approved. I would encourage not only all those people in my electorate but all Australians looking for jobs in regional Australia to get onto that petition and sign it.
We take responsibility in these challenging times for leading the nation forward, for delivering on our economy and for providing future growth and opportunities. We continue to provide support for the Australian people at one of their most difficult periods of time. Mr Deputy Speaker, without reflecting on you, I'm sure that you are old enough to recall the last recession—1990-91. I remember it. I was an apprentice. I was on the tools. It was a very, very tough period of time for the Australian nation. It was the recession that we allegedly had to have. Well, currently we are in a difficult position because of an outbreak of a virus around the world which is impacting all international economies, and of course it impacts Australia's trade. But the resources sector continues to be a shining light. It continues to deliver to its customers. It continues to ensure those supply chains are maintained.
In terms of support in Australia, we've provided and committed $314 billion in assistance to Australians. That is a record level. If we hadn't made those commitments, an additional 700,000 Australians would be out of work. Through the JobKeeper program, we're supporting some 3½ million Australians and some 900,000 businesses in our electorates and in the electorates of those opposite. We are providing opportunities to ensure that apprentices and trainees are able to stay connected to those businesses that employ them, through a 50 per cent wage subsidy, to the value of $2.8 billion. As a former apprentice, I recall that it was fairly tough because you were paid not a great amount of money—in fact, I recall my take-home pay was under $60 a week as a first year. I know times have changed and that's improved substantially, but the fact that the Commonwealth is willing to support 50 per cent of apprentices' wages is no small thing. It will make a difference into the future for those individuals and allow them to complete their training and go on to be incredibly productive members not only of our society but of industry and to continue to drive our economy, to provide opportunities into the future.
So we are helping businesses through the pandemic. We're helping individuals and households. In fact, we've provided further support for our seniors and pensioners in support payments of $750 in tough times, and I know that that money has been very much appreciated. A $1 billion relief and recovery fund has been set up to support the regions, which is allocated, including money towards air freight. That will make a difference, because it's about bottoms on seats. The best thing we can do for businesses is to get customers back through their doors, to provide further opportunities for them.
We've temporarily waived the environmental management charge for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park—that is $8.1 million. In my local area—and our local area, Mr Deputy Speaker—the Lady Elliot Island resort is very appreciative of the fact that those fees have been waived. It has meant that they are able to ensure that they are ready to go when tourists return to those areas, particularly international tourism. There is $10.1 million in support for national parks in the Northern Territory; and $165 million provided for domestic aviation network guarantees. We have continued over a long period of time to support the Australian people in their time of need.
In my electorate of Hinkler, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have over 1,400 businesses that produce some of the best agricultural produce not only in this country but around the world. It is critical that we continue to have not only confidence in that industry but confidence for those farmers and businesses that are making investment decisions right now. What does that mean in a practical sense? It means quite simply that they're deciding whether to plant or not. They're deciding whether to invest their hard-earned and take a risk as to whether they can actually get that crop off in the future. To do that, they need labour, seasonal labour, and they need it available at the time that the crop is ready to pick. This has been a very, very challenging period of time not only for those businesses but right across the country. We have to ensure that the hundreds of millions of dollars that pour out of my electorate in agricultural product can be delivered.
The hardworking men and women of the resources sector will continue to do what they've done over recent weeks and months—that is, manage the pandemic. They have managed it incredibly well in terms of their local processes and procedures. They're ensuring the health of their employees and, most importantly, they're ensuring the lights stay on in this country. They've made significant commitments–and I take the point from the Leader of the Opposition earlier: it affects the individuals in this parliament as well in terms of isolation periods and being away from families. But there are members working in the resources sector who for months have not been home and have not seen their families, and it has been incredibly difficult for them. So I want to thank them all again, publicly, for the work that they are doing. They continue to help drive the Australian economy. They continue to help ensure that there are jobs into the future, and, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I'm sure you'd agree, they will continue to do that because it's necessary.
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:38): [by video link] In the rhythm of parliamentary life, it really does feel remarkable to be making a speech in the parliament in this way, beaming in by video link, as colleagues have been doing over the last two weeks. It's an amazing part of an extraordinary period through which we are living. But the COVID-19 crisis has not just been characterised by novelties; it's been in so many ways characterised by a sense of fear, and that's been felt in no greater way than in the aged-care sector.
We've been focusing on aged care over the last couple of weeks in the hope that what we would hear from the government is a plan about how to fix the problems that are so endemic throughout the sector. But when you listen to what the government's been talking about in response over the last couple of weeks, you hear a group of people who are doing everything they can to try and avoid responsibility. They'll talk about what's happening overseas and how it's much worse there. They'll talk about the fact that, yes, they're responsible for regulating the sector but maybe they're not so responsible for its operation. They'll talk about the fact that, in Victoria, there's a whole lot of other stuff going on and so, in some ways, they can't be held responsible for what's going on in Victoria—it kind of doesn't count.
Indeed, we heard a contribution from a Victorian government senator who made the point that there are thousands of people who die in aged care every year, and so, in a sense, another 450 is almost just business as usual! That was an extraordinary point to make. It's obviously heartless. It's obviously repugnant. But it's also so tone-deaf, because it fails to understand that, in aged-care facilities, there is a deep sense of anxiety about the possibility of a COVID test coming back positive, and, for those aged-care facilities where it has come back positive, there is a white-knuckled fear about how they're going to stop this virus from spreading throughout their facility.
Aged care is a sector in which remarkable people work, looking after our loved ones—working, actually, for not a lot of pay, and doing so in such a brave way where they're exposing themselves to danger. It's not their issue, but what they're faced with is what they're not given to work with. In a sense, the faults are systemic. You have a system which is dramatically underfunded, where the Prime Minister himself, as Treasurer, cut billions of dollars out of the sector, forcing people to work across multiple facilities. We've got a sector where there's not enough PPE available—and the government is explicitly responsible for infection control. These issues go to the ability of the sector to manage infection control, and the infection got in there. Manifestly, that is the government's responsibility.
But this failure to take responsibility was seen yesterday as well, when we had the worst figure in relation to the contraction of our economy in almost a century. This is a dramatic event—one where we see a million people who are unemployed. The expectation is that another 400,000 are going to join that number by the end of the year. Small businesses are deferring $56 billion worth of payments. But, when the Treasurer got up to talk about it, the first thing he did was to point overseas. He pointed directly to the northern hemisphere. He wasn't trying to take any sense of responsibility for what has gone wrong here. Yet the fact of the matter is that, before COVID even struck, you had a whole lot that was wrong with an economy which was already anaemic, with record slow wage growth. We'd had, already, GDP per capita contraction of two quarters consecutively in the last couple of years, which means that, but for immigration, we were already in recession. We'd seen household debt at record levels. The truth of the matter is that the seeds of the Morrison recession were sown well and truly before COVID struck. But what we don't get from this government is any sense of taking responsibility for this at all.
Young people in this country—people who are feeling like, at a really difficult moment in their lives, they've lost an entire year—are looking for hope, but a precondition of that hope is that we have a government which takes responsibility, because that's the basis upon which a plan for the future can be developed and one which so clearly has not been developed by this government. But, without that plan and without taking that responsibility, what we've got in this country is fear. We have a nation where there is uncertainty and where there is fear. We have a nation where there is also no leadership from the Morrison government. (Time expired)
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (15:43): Well, of course, yesterday it was terrible—though probably not surprising—to see confirmation that we are now technically in a recession in this country, with the ABS June quarterly GDP figures showing a seven per cent drop in our GDP—the most significant quarterly drop since the Second World War. Unfortunately, in March—though it was much smaller—we also had a reduction. Thus now we've had two quarters of a reduction in our GDP, which meets the definition of a recession.
There are two components to that figure announced yesterday: one we do know and one we don't know. What we do know is that, compared to so many other economies around the world, particularly nations comparable to Australia, comparatively that is the smallest reduction in GDP, when you compare it to nations in Europe and other nations like the United States et cetera. Seven per cent is nothing to be proud of, but it could have been so much worse. That's the second point about that figure: we'll never know how bad and how significant the reduction in GDP for the June quarter and the March quarter, and future quarters, could have been if we hadn't taken the action that we took—that the Prime Minister and the cabinet took—to ensure that we limited the economic impact of this coronavirus pandemic on our nation.
There are three components to what could have happened. One, of course, did happen, which is that we did, for health reasons, need to make decisions to curtail the normal activity of life in this country and request and require certain businesses to not continue to operate so that we could limit the transmission of the disease in those early stages. That was obviously an enormously stressful and difficult proposition for so many businesses who were confronted with the proposition of whether they would have a livelihood anymore and how long they might have to try and survive, if they could survive—for days or weeks, let alone months. That was something the government needed to confront.
As to the second and third elements of that, had we not undertaken the support that we did, particularly for those businesses that had an impact through the restrictions that we put in place, what might those businesses have had to do? Were they going to have to lay off significant numbers of their employees? They simply would not have been able to meet their wages bill. If that happened, would employees who were no longer employed suddenly dramatically contract the consumption that they would normally undertake in our economy? So, quite rightly, we as a government announced a series of measures—the cornerstone of which was of course the JobKeeper program—that put us in a position to say to businesses: 'We don't want you to have to make any difficult or tough decisions about reducing your employee count. We don't want you to have to make a decision, when there is so much uncertainty before us, about reducing employees. Maybe you can't afford to keep them on right now ,or you think you won't be able to keep them on much longer, and you want to make that difficult decision as early as possible to reserve your cash flow and your cash reserves.' The JobKeeper program will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the greatest economic responses to a crisis that could not have been predicted. The crisis was not the fault of anyone in this country—in particular, our government. It was thrust upon us, out of nowhere, and it required a very dramatic response and a very significant response. That is exactly what our government delivered, and the success of that cannot be understated.
We've obviously announced a whole range of other economic programs to respond to the challenges of this. But in a week like this, where we have tragically had confirmation of a significant reduction in the size of our economic pie, our GDP, what's very important to remember is that it could been so much worse if we hadn't made the decisions that we made very early on, and very significantly, to make sure the health challenges of this pandemic didn't turn into a dramatic economic challenge because so many businesses were left alone with no support from their government to help them through. We certainly have done that. There is more to be done, and we will continue to do more, and a lot of the programs we have announced are going to continue for a long time into the future. I'm proud to be part of a government that has risen to the dual challenges of addressing an unforeseen and frightening health pandemic and ensured that we are providing support so that our economy can recover on the other side of this challenge.
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (15:48): [by video link] The Leader of the Opposition said a few weeks ago that COVID is like an X-ray: it highlights and it lays bare the situation that we face across our country. Well, there is one matter that COVID has made completely transparent, and that is the type of leader who today runs our country. It doesn't really need to be said that the Prime Minister exercises more power across our nation than any other single person. Yet there is a really clear pattern emerging here: when Australia is in crisis, when there are failures and when there are difficulties, it is always someone else's fault. That is not leadership. It is not leadership to take credit for good news but to run from bad news. But, during COVID so far, that's what we've learnt about the leadership of the Prime Minister. I want to talk a little bit about some of the examples of where we've seen that during COVID. But, actually, this has been quite a consistent theme that I have observed over the two years during which the Prime Minister has been in this chair.
You will remember, Deputy Speaker, the horrible bushfires that ravaged large parts of our country during December-January. Twenty per cent of our country was on fire. A billion animals died over that summer. And what did we see this Prime Minister, the most powerful man in the country, doing? Well, he was missing in action for quite a long time, and then he popped up on radio, and his response to this was, 'I don't hold the hose; I don't run the control centre.' It was petulant and, frankly, I found it a bit pathetic that the person who has more power than anyone else in our country would essentially dismiss any responsibility at what was one of our country's greatest hours of need.
Robodebt is another really good example. This has been a nightmare for hundreds of thousands of Australians where the Australian government decided that it would write aggressive, nasty legalese letters to some of the most vulnerable people around our country demanding that they repay a debt to Centrelink. More than 400 young people died soon after receiving their letter under robodebt. This scheme was morally wrong, and we found out later that it was illegal. This has Scott Morrison's fingerprints all over it, because the Prime Minister created this scheme while he was in the Treasury office and he oversaw this scheme continuously while he was Prime Minister. But what did we see when we saw that the scheme was going wrong? We got a really mealy-mouthed apology from the Prime Minister—one I, frankly, would not accept from one of my own children—and we've still had no proper inquiry into what went wrong in that program, one of the biggest public policy disasters I've observed in the time that I've been in this parliament.
Another really good example is sports rorts. This was a genuine outrage where we saw a government minister take the taxpayer dollars that are paid by hardworking Australians and use them in a way that was highly political to try to win marginal seats in an election. It was completely wrong. We know, with absolutely completely black-and-white evidence, that the Prime Minister's office was up to its neck in this, because we know there were emails going back and forth debating which different groups who perhaps were not eligible for the funding would be getting funding through the program. And what happened at the end? The Prime Minister sent a minister out to take the hit for that and washed his hands of the whole affair. He effectively just said, 'The minister is responsible; I had nothing to do with it,' when we know that that was not the truth.
I want to talk a bit about aged care, because this is probably the most profoundly disappointing, disparaging and awful point of the Prime Minister not taking responsibility for things he is clearly in control of. There is no question that aged care is a federal responsibility. What has happened to older Australians living in aged care under COVID has been utterly disgraceful. From what we can see, even though, as soon as Newmarch House occurred, it was obvious that we were going to have outbreaks in aged care, basically the Prime Minister stood back and did very little to prepare the sector for this. We've got almost 500 deaths now in aged care around the country, and what does the Prime Minister do? He just says that basically this is a lack of investment over many, many years. Well, this Prime Minister has been part of a government for seven years. You do not get to say that after seven years when you have had the power to fix these problems.
There are many other examples. We talked a little bit before about the Ruby Princess. But I just want to leave the House with one question. I really wonder, when I see these examples and when I look at the Prime Minister: if you don't want to be responsible, why did you seek this role? You have the power to affect things as they change around our country, and today you're washing your hands whenever anything goes wrong. It's not leadership and it's not good enough. (Time expired)
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (15:53): I stand in strong opposition to this matter of public importance. It is nothing more than a distraction from the current challenges facing Australians due to the pandemic. From the outset, the coalition government worked decisively to support all Australians through the coronavirus crisis. In fact, the Prime Minister declared the coronavirus a pandemic on 21 January, two weeks before the World Health Organization acted to do the same. That's what I call leadership. We have done everything possible to provide safety to people's lives and livelihoods in an unprecedented situation. The Morrison government knew that this global health crisis would instigate an economic crisis, and we took decisive action to cushion the blow and protect Australians by providing an unprecedented level of economic support totalling $314 billion. That economic support is making sure that everyday Australians survive one of the worst recessions in 30 years.
This week the Morrison government extended the temporary JobKeeper program, which has allowed businesses and not-for-profits to keep more Australians in jobs and connected to their employees. I'll repeat that: we've extended the JobKeeper program. The program has been extended until 28 March 2021, targeting support to businesses and not-for-profits who continue to be impacted significantly by the coronavirus pandemic. JobKeeper was designed to be temporary, targeted and scaled back over time. This will mean payments are gradually reduced so that the program is sustainable in the long term.
In my electorate of Reid, the Children's Tumour Foundation in Five Dock has five people accessing JobKeeper. This is a not-for-profit organisation that supports children and families living with neurofibromatosis. Ruth said, 'It's a complete lifeline for us; it's been able to keep us going in these very turbulent times when we have more people being impacted and needing our services than ever before.' Over in Abbotsford, Con, the owner of Watergrill Restaurant, said: 'The Morrison government's JobKeeper scheme is world-class and has undeniably allowed us to stay connected to our teams and to navigate through these most onerous times. It is greatly appreciated and an amazing economic stimulus.' It has meant that Con could keep on about 25 staff members. That means those 25 people can remain connected to their employer at a time of great uncertainty. It's allowing businesses to remain open and keeping people in jobs. The Watergrill Restaurant in Abbotsford is just one example amongst thousands in Reid—about 8,800 organisations in fact—which are receiving JobKeeper. This program has provided cash flow support to more than 900,000 businesses and income support to around 3.5 million workers to date.
As a psychologist, what I've known from the start of this crisis is the impact that coronavirus will have on people's mental health. This is a time of heightened anxiety and stress; a time of isolation and disruption to routine. It has undeniably and understandably affected the mental health of all Australians. Since March 2020, the government has announced a number of emergency response measures to support the mental health and wellbeing of Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic. We introduced the $669 million telehealth initiative so that people could access mental health care in a flexible and COVID-safe way. This step was taken in addition to the significant funding boost to mental health services across Australia during the coronavirus pandemic. Forty-eight million dollars has been dedicated to the pandemic mental health response plan so that we can provide a targeted response, and a further $74 million has been dedicated to bolstering existing services, including beyondblue, Lifeline, the Kids Helpline and headspace.
The Morrison government's COVID support has put everyday Australians front and centre. We are listening to what they need and we are acting. The Morrison government will continue to listen to the needs of the Australian people and will work to support them through an unprecedented crisis in Australia's history.
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (15:58): This government has failed to provide a comprehensive plan for jobs. At the same time as we have one million Australians unemployed, the government tells us that there will be another 400,000 Australians unemployed by Christmas. We have 345,000 young people unemployed and no plan for jobs from this government.
We have 323,000 Western Australians relying on JobKeeper and 216,000 people in aged care feeling vulnerable and left behind by this government and the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. There are 195,000 early childhood workers in Australia, with thousands and thousands of them booted off JobKeeper before anyone else. We have 103,000 people in Australia who are waiting for home-care packages, and this government won't do anything about them. There are 23,000 Australians stranded overseas. In my electorate of Perth, there are 10,119 people on JobSeeker. What's this government doing? They're not developing a plan for jobs. Minister Colbeck, after the last two weeks, is still Minister Colbeck. The member for Hughes—I'm honoured that he is here—is still supported by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health. I'll say that again: the member for Hughes is supported by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health. The Deputy Prime Minister has survived another fortnight of undermining by his own side and absolute chaos in the National Party.
When you think about where we started this parliamentary year, talking about sports rorts—and I'll have something to say about sports rorts in my electorate in a moment—at least Bridget McKenzie had the decency to resign. Senator McKenzie acted appropriately. Senator Colbeck should go and have a very long, detailed chat to her about what you do when you comprehensively fail in your portfolio and fail to do your job as a minister of the Commonwealth.
While I'm talking about Senator McKenzie and sports rorts, I note that Senator Dean Smith, a Western Australian who 100 per cent supports Clive Palmer's and Scott Morrison's efforts to tear down the WA hard border, has been running around claiming credit for work that the City of Bayswater, in fact, did. Senator Smith's endorsement letter wasn't enough to get funding for the Noranda Netball Association—which was one of the highest rated applications for sports funding—because they were affected by the sports rorts scandal; he is now claiming that he funded it, when, in fact, it was the City of Bayswater. It's stealing other people's homework, stealing credit for the great work of people like Mayor Dan Bull and the council at the City of Bayswater. I wanted to get that on the record because I think it is a disgraceful and dishonest activity that Senator Smith is currently engaging in.
We talk about having no plan for jobs. Let's talk about some of the jobs that the government have been happy to see walk out the door on their watch. We understand there could be up to 20,000 people lose their jobs in our universities because this government refused to provide JobKeeper to them. I'm thinking of businesses in my electorate, like Matrix Productions in Bayswater. Darryl Edwards worked in the events industry for decades. He is worried about the wind back of JobKeeper, because we still see so many businesses in the events industry completely ignored by this government. As I said before, 86 childcare centres in my electorate had JobKeeper ripped away from them in some sort of sick social experiment. The government said, 'Oh, we'll take JobKeeper off some of the hardest working, lowest paid workers in Australia and see what happens, and then we'll see what we do with the rest of Australia.' We're about to find out what happens to the rest of Australia, when they wind back JobKeeper later this month.
Again, for my electorate of Perth, there's no Perth City Deal. Prime Minister Turnbull—that's how long we've been waiting for the Perth City Deal—promised that back in 2017, when he was Prime Minister. He said it was going to be done in about 12 months. We're still waiting. Pretty much every other state in the country has a city deal, but not Western Australia. This government turns its back on Western Australians.
I've got proof of that again when it comes to the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme. Under this deposit scheme there are 10,000 loans. How many of them are in regional Western Australia? I can count them—16; just 16 loans out of 10,000. That's how you treat Western Australia. It is disgraceful. (Time expired)
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (16:03): I welcome the opportunity to speak. I've only been in this place for a mere 15 months, but, during that time, my electorate's seen not one but four severe challenges. It's been a remarkable time in our country since 18 May. But it's fair to say that this is a strong coalition government, and it has managed to chart a very steady course through these disasters.
My area of Cowper, particularly the Macleay and Nambucca regions, was gripped by a long-term drought from about 2016 to 2020. We then had devastating bushfires and heavy smoke, which took its toll, from August 2019 to February 2020. Australia proved itself to be, as the poem says, a land 'of droughts and flooding rains', as we saw isolated severe storms and flash flooding in Port Macquarie on 2 February and in Coffs Harbour and the hinterland on 11 February. And then, of course, the one-in-100-year global health pandemic started in February.
Whilst I wish none of this had occurred, I've seen it bring out the best in my community. Cowper residents dug deep for their farmers by buying drought-relief bales, they banded together to fight bushfires and now they've rallied to adhere to social-distancing restrictions. Indeed, we haven't seen a case of community transmission in Cowper for about four months.
I'm proud to be a member of this good Liberal-National government because we have taken responsibility for these significant challenges confronting the Australian people. We have introduced an unprecedented level of temporary support to help the residents and businesses most in need in my electorate. In terms of bushfire assistance, there were the disaster recovery payments of $1,000 for individuals and $400 for children. I know that a total of $29 million had been given out to approximately 25,000 applicants as at June this year. Our government, out of compassion, doubled those disaster recovery payments, from $400 to $800, which was an additional $34 million. For primary producers who had lost stock, fences, sheds, machinery and crops, more than $10 million has been handed out, in grants of up to $75,000, to about 175 producers. I know that producers and businesses have benefited greatly from the government's concessional loans. In New South Wales alone, the grants have totalled over $15 million to June this year.
For the drought affected farmers in the Kempsey local government area, Minister Littleproud enabled their access to the $57 million extension of the Drought Communities Program in January this year. Through the Drought Community Support Initiative administered by St Vincent de Paul, a total of 266 farmers, farm workers and rural supply businesses have been assisted. The Drought Community Support Initiative, with its $3,000 grants, is still open for applications—and I encourage farmers, farm workers and suppliers not to self-assess but to give Vinnies a call to see if they're eligible.
And, of course, there's the assistance our coalition government has provided throughout the coronavirus pandemic. Our government heeded the advice of the Chief Medical Officer early and declared a pandemic. Because of the swift, decisive action of the Prime Minister and health minister, our country saw far fewer deaths from coronavirus than many of our overseas allies.
So much has been said in this House over the past two weeks about the historic wage-subsidy scheme JobKeeper. I won't go into any detail other than to say I know that there are 5,300 very grateful businesses, organisations and sole traders receiving it in Cowper. Businesses have also welcomed the $1.5 billion expansion of the apprentice and trainee wage subsidy scheme, as it keeps our young people in training, and in a job in businesses with up to 199 employees now. Our government is also supporting construction jobs and businesses across the Mid North Coast by investing $44.1 million in local shovel-ready infrastructure projects and road safety upgrades.
Our coalition government has worked hard to provide timely economic, social and health support through not one but three major natural disasters, and one global pandemic during my time as a parliamentarian. I condemn this MPI before the House today.
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (16:08): The government's failure to take responsibility is hurting the Australian people: the worst recession in our lifetime, with an economy that was already in the pits late last year; one million Australians that don't have a job, 400,000 Australians likely to join them by Christmas, thousands more with hours cut and thousands of businesses teetering on the edge; an aged-care sector in desperate need of action and support now, not in three months time, not in six months time; a Public Service cut by 18,000 jobs, with expertise hollowed out; a superannuation system being eroded by forcing Australians to raid their retirement incomes; a university sector facing billions of dollars in lost revenue yet the government choosing this time to make it harder for younger people to go to university; a research sector facing thousands of job losses, with its funding sources drying up; an environment facing the challenges of climate change, poor regulation and poor protection; a school system slipping down the global ratings, while we lose thousands of apprentices out of our VET system; a nation deeply in need of reconciliation with our First Peoples. This is a time when the government should be prepared to stand up to the challenges we face rather than trying to shirk them.
So just how are we going to navigate these challenges? When are we going to see something meaningful from this Liberal-National government? What we are seeing is plenty of deflection—willing to compare us to other countries rather than owning our own responsibilities. We're seeing lots of reheating and recycling of initiatives of the government that were in place before the pandemic arrived to see if they can fool people with smoke and mirrors. We're seeing a fair bit of self-praise for a wage subsidy that this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to; that was an idea from the Labor movement, not those opposite. Of course, when it suits, we are seeing plenty of blame-shifting to states and territories and to Labor in government and opposition—no responsibility, just rhetoric; just the latest talking points; millions unemployed, and still crickets.
Instead of driving productivity and building our knowledge capital through increased investment in higher education, backing our local scientists and building a world's best R&D sector, we see a job-ready package that will actually cut funding to our universities and make it harder to get a degree and a job. Instead of action in our aged-care sector, looking after our loved ones and supporting the staff who work so hard, we see over $1 billion cut from the system, an absence of proper regulation and oversight, a minister clearly out of his depth and a government buck-passing to states and territories. Instead of building the capacity of our Public Service through removing ideological staffing caps and limiting the contracting of labour hire, we see thousands of jobs lost, the outsourcing of day-to-day Public Service tasks, an explosion in consultancies and attacks on the integrity of public servants.
Critically, instead of a jobs plan to meet the challenges of the deepest recession of our lifetime, when Australians need support, we see them cutting back JobKeeper, cutting back JobSeeker and cutting back super, about to welsh on an election promise, and attempting to cut back pay and conditions for those who can least afford it.
This is a government that's big on sizzle but short on sausage. I tell you, this is a government you do not want at your barbecue. They won't bring the meat or salad. They won't hold the tongs. They won't do the dishes. If they burn the sausages, it will be someone else's fault. If they cook the steaks badly, they will still be self-congratulatory; it'll be 'well done, Angus'! They'll probably have a beer. Unfortunately, it'll probably be your beer.
Whatever the questions raised by the current circumstances, Richard Colbeck cannot be the answer to any of them. Whenever anyone says they're 'doing a Colbeck', we know that means they're walking out on their responsibilities. Earlier today in the Federation Chamber, when I was talking about meeting with aged-care workers and about the 3.7 million Australians struggling with pain management during the necessary restrictions due to the pandemic, what did members of the government do? They walked out. They did a Colbeck. They walked out on our aged-care workforce. They walked out on those Australians struggling with serious and persistent pain. It's time for this government to stop doing a Colbeck and take responsibility for their work.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (16:13): I rise with pride that this government has actually been extremely accountable for the actions that we have taken. In fact, I believe that everybody in this House can feel proud of what they are doing in their own local constituency. I know that because I know so many members on the other side of this House are reaching out to ministers, to people in our government, to seek assistance for members of their electorates. That's because in this country we have a very fine democracy, and that democracy means we have accountability and we deliver for the people of Australia.
I don't think anyone could really question that the Morrison government has delivered an incredible outcome with regard to our health response to the COVID pandemic. If you look at the actual facts, when you talk about responsibility and being accountable, let's look at the deaths from COVID. The death rate per 100,000 in Australia is 1.2. What is the death rate in Canada? It is a similar sized country, it is a similar public-private balanced country. It is not 1.2 per 100,000, it is 23.8 per 100,000. What about the UK? It is 69 per 100,000. Ours is just one. That is because Australia has had a firm pair of capable hands, a strong executive and a wonderful government that has delivered on a health outcome that has dodged an incredible bullet, which is the COVID pandemic. There are some people who might say that that was just a matter of luck. The government was just sitting on its hands and watching this pandemic unfold in front of its very eyes. But, in fact, I'm really sorry to tell the members on the other side that actions speak louder than words.
Let's start with what we have done. We closed our international borders on 1 February. We then swiftly implemented social distancing and engaged in rapid testing. We have actually supplied more than 5.5 million tests to the states and territories to deliver. We built the COVIDSafe app, which is being used very well in New South Wales. In fact, it has had a higher uptake than in every other country that has had a similar program—seven million Australians. This is the first time something like this has ever been piloted. It works because the way that you do manual tracking is to identify who it is that you've been in contact with. The technology of the COVIDSafe app allows your phone to know, in a de-identified way, when you have been in contact with someone else. It is the first time it's been piloted here in Australia, and seven million Australians have taken it up.
We've also rapidly increased our intensive care capacity from 2,200 beds to 7,500 beds. So a lot of work has been going on, including improved communication to ensure that our culturally and linguistically diverse communities are getting the message about how to act safely in a COVID pandemic.
We have also invested incredibly in telehealth, which has been very important to ensuring that our frontline workers are kept safer and that people in the community can get access to health care without having to go to see their doctor in person. That is saving lives, as we speak.
Lastly, from the health perspective, we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars—more than $300 million—into vaccine development. There are three current trials here in Australia and we are also in negotiations with trials overseas. That's very important, because what the vaccine offers is hope to the Australian people.
But in my fair state of Victoria, unfortunately, we can see evidence where delivery of services has not occurred to the standard that we require here in Australia—the quarantining fiasco, the track and trace fiasco and, unfortunately, we have that very serious community transmission outbreak. But the federal government isn't about laying blame; it's about doing something to serve the people of Victoria and that includes a significant number of Victorian targeted outcomes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Can the member for Higgins pause for a moment. Is the minister seeking the call?
Ms Ley: Yes. May I ask the excellent member for Higgins to pause and I ask that the business of the day be brought on.
Mr Burke: I'm not sure that anything has been moved, so I'm asking if the MPI is still the question before the House, or not.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The MPI is still before the House.
Mr Burke: Then I'll sit down.
Ms Ley: Deputy Speaker, I'm asking that the business of the day be brought on.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are moving—. The Manager of Opposition Business?
Mr Burke: Now that the time for the MPI seems to have expired and there is no other matter before the House I move:
That—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Manager of Opposition Business, we were dealing with the matter of the minister moving—
Mr Burke: But she hadn't moved anything. I checked. Nothing had been moved. The MPI was still before the House. The MPI is no longer before the House, because of time. There's no question before the House, and I'm standing to move a suspension of the standing orders.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hadn't concluded the discussion, as the MPI was still going. I hadn't called the conclusion of the MPI.
The SPEAKER: I haven't heard what the Manager of Opposition Business has said, but my understanding is that there hasn't actually been a motion moved.
Mr Burke: We were still in the MPI. The minister sought the call. The minister did not move anything, but the minister did ask—and this is my best recollection of a quotation, in case it's wrong—that the business of the day be brought on. I then stood up and asked whether the MPI was still before the House or whether there was a motion now before the House. I was told that there was no motion before the House because no motion had been moved. While this was happening, the MPI ran out of time. So I'm not sure now whether we're still in the MPI or whether we're not. If we're not, because of the effluxion of time, I'm seeking the call.
The SPEAKER: Certainly, whatever delays the MPI during that one hour, the clock keeps going. I've experienced the perils of being the last speaker on the MPI and had to condense my five minute speech to about five seconds, on one occasion. The MPI began at 3.18 and 30 seconds, so the time allotted for the MPI has now expired.
I think what's happened is that the minister has asked, as I saw, but not moved, and while this debate has been going on the time for the MPI has concluded. Even if the minister now wanted to move that motion, she couldn't, because we're passed the MPI.
DOCUMENTS
Speeches by Members
Presentation
The SPEAKER (16:23): Before I give the call to the Manager of Opposition Business, I present three speeches for the member for Adelaide—and the member for Lalor. That doesn't require a seconder. We've had a look at those, and that's all fine.
MOTIONS
Morrison Government
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:23): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) thanks to this Prime Minister, members opposite have voted more times to shut down debate than they have voted on legislation;
(b) if the government cuts short debate on the next bill, it will be the second time this week that the Prime Minister has shut down debate on a bill of critical importance; and
(c) this Prime Minister has a disdain for democratic debate; and
(2) Invites the Prime Minister to attend the chamber and make a statement on this matter.
It would be extraordinary if a bill which is meant to be about process were not allowed to be debated. It would be extraordinary if a bill which will have a permanent impact on the environment of Australia and on the heritage of Australia were not to be properly debated in this House. It would be extraordinary if we were to find ourselves in a situation where, in the same week that the government has said that under no circumstances should they be handing over foreign powers to state governments, they do exactly that.
The SPEAKER: Just to be clear: the Manager of Opposition Business hasn't sought leave. You've just moved the motion?
Mr BURKE: I've just moved it, yes.
It would be extraordinary if they were to do that.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr BURKE: Just pay attention. I don't have to answer questions during this. I'd suggest that, if you want to know what's happening in the House, you ask the Leader of the House. Traditionally the person in that role has known something about what's going on.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (16:25): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
The House divided. [16:30]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (16:32): It now being past 4.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (16:32): Mr Speaker, I require the question to be put immediately without debate.
The SPEAKER: We did this the other night. So that members don't need to swap sides I'll put the question this way: the question is the House do not adjourn.
The House divided. [16:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
MOTIONS
Prime Minister
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:36): I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Manager of Opposition Business from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes that:
(a) thanks to this Prime Minister, members opposite have voted more times to shut down debate than they have voted on legislation;
(b) if the government cuts short debate on the next bill to be announced, it will be the second time this week that the Prime Minister has shut down debate on a bill of critical importance; and
(c) this Prime Minister has a disdain for democratic debate; and
(2) invites the Prime Minister to remain in the chamber and make a statement on this matter.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I'm just going to say to the Manager of Opposition Business that I didn't have the text of his last motion but I listened to it very closely. There is a difference between a same-question rule and a same-motion rule. On hearing that, it—apart from a word or two being changed—did not change the substance of the motion. That's certainly the case with the motion he put earlier. Obviously, when it comes to the House, the Manager of Opposition Business has a right to move motions but not to move motions that are essentially the same. I'm happy to hear from him.
Mr BURKE: The first thing that I'd raise is that, given the occurrence of it being 4:30 and the question of the adjournment being put, you never had the opportunity to seek a seconder. Therefore, the question has never been in the possession of the House.
The SPEAKER: I think that's a reasonable point, but what I'm foreshadowing—and I'm well aware of that; the House has not made a decision on it—is that the House is about to make a decision on the motion that is moved. But there is also not a capacity to move endless motions to prevent business coming on. But I will allow this one—you're on. I'll allow this one and then I will be calling the clerk.
Mr BURKE: Understood, Mr Speaker. It's important for this to be debated, because the arrogance of a Prime Minister who can only cope with the sound of his own voice needs—
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (16:39): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
The House divided. [16:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (16:44): Is the motion seconded?
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (16:40): I second the motion. This Prime Minister hates scrutiny. He tries to shut down debate constantly, and I bet he will do it again—
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (16:44): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER (16:45): The question is that the member be no further heard.
The House divided. [16:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (16:46): The question now is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be disagreed to.
Mr BUTLER (Hindmarsh—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (16:46): Time and time again, members are gagged from important debates by this Prime Minister—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (16:46): I move:
That the question be put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be put.
The House divided. [16:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER ( 16: 49 ): The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be disagreed to.
The House divided. [16:49]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
BILLS
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) 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:
"The House declines to give the bill a second reading as it is of the opinion that the outdated proposals from the Government ignore recommendations from the Samuel Review and fail to protect the environment, create jobs and provide certainty for business".
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:51): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) allow debate on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 before the House to continue until every member wishing to speak on the second reading has done so;
(2) notes that this will allow members to explain
(a) the government's attempt to rehash a failed Abbott-era environment bill; and
(b) that the bill is inconsistent with the interim report of the Samuel Review commissioned by the government.
We've got members of parliament on the list wishing to speak. They should be allowed to do so. We're elected by the Australian community. We have a right to speak in this place.
The SPEAKER: I ask the Manager of Opposition Business to resume his seat and the Leader of the House to resume his seat, because I want to address the substance of what the Manager of Opposition Business is doing. We had a similar, if not identical, circumstance the other night, where the bill was called on and there was a suspension moved between the second and third readings. Really where it's moved is immaterial, but I do want to address the House on this matter and I want to clarify the Practice as it applies. The other night there was a lot happening, and I ruled that out of order. There have been occasions, including one cited by the Manager of Opposition Business where in December 2013—I think 10 December—a motion very similar to the one he has moved now was moved at about this stage of the debate. There was another occasion, which I hadn't recalled, in 2017, when I was in the chair and I immediately said no, until looking at the relevance of it. The relevant standing orders is 47(c). It says:
(c) If a suspension motion is moved without notice it:
(i) must be relevant to any business under discussion and
seconded; …
The difficulty the chair has is in making a decision where they don't have a copy of the motion and all the rest of it. Having heard the Manager of Opposition Business and his motion, which he has put a little bit of time into preparing, I will say that he is entitled to move that motion now but he needs to understand that the House will then make a determination on whether that motion is carried or not, and variations to it won't be considered by the chair afterwards, because otherwise the same-motion rule will come into effect—and I have the Practice here in front of me on that. In layman's terms, if the House decides against the motion being moved, that will be the end of that procedural matter. You've moved it. The Leader of the House had come to the dispatch box. I give the call to the Leader of the House.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (16:54): It doesn't make much contextual sense. I'd prefer the Manager of Opposition Business to speak.
The SPEAKER: He can speak again for however long he wants—he's the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:55): Thanks for returning the call, and I thank the Leader of the House for having a brief moment of democracy.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (16:55): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that Manager of Opposition Business be no further heard.
The House divided. [16:59]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:00): Is the motion seconded?
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (17:00): I second the motion. Scrutiny is extinct under this government. It's very clear, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (17:00): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Griffith be no further heard.
The House divided. [17:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:03): The question now is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be disagreed to.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (17:03): This is appalling! Trashing the environment, trashing our democratic institutions—
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (17:03): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be put.
The House divided. [17:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:06): The question now is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be disagreed to.
The House divided. [17:07]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:08): The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. I call the member for Melbourne in continuation.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (17:08): [by video link] Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've concluded my speech.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (17:08): In that case, I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER (17:09): The question is the question be put.
The House divided. [17:09]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:12): The question now is, on the second reading amendment moved by the member for Griffith, that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The House divided. [17:12]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:14): The question is that the bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [17:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (17:15): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Watson from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) affirms the principle of the standing orders that the third reading should happen on a subsequent day and that should occur for the current bill before the House;
(2) acknowledges that environmental laws are crucial to protect the environment and that we're in the middle of an extinction crisis;
(3) notes that environmental laws also affect job creation and investment certainty; and
(4) accordingly asserts that environmental law changes should be properly considered, not rammed through this House.
In the middle of a debate about environmental laws, we have a bulldozer in front of us—a bulldozer that's just wanting to charge through legislation, that doesn't want to have debate.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business can resume his seat for a second. I appreciate what he's seeking to do, and I've been more tolerant than I was the other night. Again, I don't have all the words in front of me, but I'm going to make a couple of points here: firstly, on the precedents—and it is a big call to call them precedents; I'd rather say on the occasions where suspensions of standing orders have been allowed and are directly relevant during the course of a bill—there's been a single one that has encapsulated the will of the House. He's now seeking a second one.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just let me finish. I let everyone else here finish—mostly. I'll be as brief as I can, but I'll be brief for me, if I can put it that way. Secondly, on the substance of the motion with respect to the third reading, it might be historic, but it certainly doesn't equate to how we deal with legislation. I think I heard him say 'the third reading on a subsequent day'.
Mr Burke: As a principle of the standing orders.
The SPEAKER: Yes, but it's not a principle of the Practice.
Mr Burke: No, that's why I've referred to the standing orders.
The SPEAKER: Well, I'm going to refer to the Practice, because if I were to accept that, really, I think I'd be accepting a second motion. I go back to the point that there's a difficulty for the chair when these things are moved on the hop. I'd be really accepting a second motion, when the House has actually said it disagrees with contributions on the second reading—that's the decision the House has made. I think what the Manager of Opposition Business is now seeking to do is to invoke certainly a principle in the standing orders not that Speakers have decided to uphold but that the House for many years has decided to uphold, and that is that the third reading immediately follows the second reading on the day of debate. I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I'm not asking for a ruling as to whether or not you agree with the principle that is contained in the motion. What I'm asking is for the opportunity for the House to determine whether it agrees with the principle that's contained in the motion. That question, that principle, has not been put to the House. I'm seeking to suspend standing orders so that it can be—no more, no less. The previous suspension dealt with one issue only: whether or not everybody who wanted to speak on the second reading should be allowed to. The government voted the way they did. We've ended up where we are with respect to the second reading.
The SPEAKER: What would you say to the proposition that, if the House moved to the third reading and the third reading were defeated, that would express a will of the House? If we moved to the third reading and the third reading were accepted, that would express a will of the House, as happens on every other piece of legislation.
Mr Burke: Well, not on every other piece of legislation. We don't always go to the third reading. Leave is sought. Leave is not always given, depending on the numbers in the parliament.
The SPEAKER: Well, we always have a third reading.
Mr Burke: But not always on the same day.
The SPEAKER: Really?
Mr Burke: Yes. It's rare, but it's not always.
The SPEAKER: It's rare. It's very rare.
Mr Burke: Yes.
The SPEAKER: And they're not for the reasons you're articulating; they're for reasons where debate's interrupted because of the adjournment or other matters.
Mr Burke: Or on occasions, in parliaments where the numbers are close, where the contingency motion is not moved and it simply goes to the next day.
The SPEAKER: But that, of course, really demonstrates that the principle you're trying to assert doesn't exist in the examples you've put forward.
Mr Burke: That's why I'm asking the House to have a decision. I'm not asking you to rule whether this principle matches your view of the standing orders. I'm asking for the House to decide whether it wants to suspend standing orders to decide whether or not it wants to affirm this principle.
The SPEAKER: Given we're at the third reading—almost—
Mr Burke: Which is why this is the only time I could move this particular motion.
The SPEAKER: As I said earlier, we're getting to the point where motions are on the border of becoming frivolous when we're trying to deal with the debate before the House. The House has expressed a very clear view with respect to the second reading. I'll allow this motion to go ahead, but I'm being very clear: this is probably the only time. I think the motion is relevant to the discussion. I think—and I do need to say this—that the argument being put is spurious to the extent that it doesn't reflect the practice of the House for many, many decades. I think the Manager of Opposition Business has demonstrated that the examples where it hasn't occurred are rare and do not relate to the motion he's put before the House. In my time here, I have never seen a member rise and say, 'I demand the third reading should be on another day so that I can consider the difference in substance between the second reading debate and the third reading debate.'
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, hang on. I'm speaking, okay? That's about the only advantage you have here: having control of the microphones.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: So I'm saying to the House very clearly now that, in allowing this, I'm allowing a second motion. It is relevant. We would then have had a motion on the second reading and the third reading. Just so everyone's clear, so that no-one's in shock, with these motions to suspend standing orders during a bill—and I've outlined the history of it, the rarity of it and the capacity of the chair to judge these and them being done on the hop—I will not be entertaining another motion to suspend standing orders. The Leader of the House.
Mr Porter: If the Manager of Opposition Business is taken at face value, he's asking for the House to determine a suspension motion on an issue of general principle. That's not related to the bill. That is—
The SPEAKER: Hang on. I want to hear the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Porter: If a suspension motion is moved without notice, it must be relevant to the business under discussion. This isn't relevant to the business under discussion; this is relevant to all business that may ever be under discussion. It is, as he puts it, a matter of general principle. There are many times that you might want to debate a motion on matters of general principle, but it is being infinitely elastic to suggest that it falls within the terms of (47)(c)(1).
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: To that point of order raised by the Leader of the House: I draw his attention to the words in point (1) where, after asking the House to affirm the principle, it concluded with the words 'should occur for the current bill'.
The SPEAKER: Just so that we're clear—I'll rule on this very quickly—I'm saying very directly to the Manager of Opposition Business: I don't like the fact this motion's been moved, because I think, frankly, everyone knows in this place that we move to the third reading except in rare and unusual circumstances that don't relate to the purpose of this motion. I know, as Speaker, that no private member has ever complained to me that we moved from the second to the third reading immediately.
I'm just going to be really candid here: most people are walking out when the third reading is on because they regard the debate as substantially over after the second reading. So I appreciate what he's trying to do. I don't believe that what is being sought here is genuinely to give members an opportunity to reflect on this overnight tonight—to agonise over it for the next month!—and come back.
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Well, I think that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do a good job of keeping a straight face!
Mr Albanese: Who knows what they think!
The SPEAKER: That hasn't been the practice of the House. As I said, if I were to allow this motion, this would be the last one. But I am concerned with the argument that has been put. The Manager of Opposition Business has been at that dispatch box and spoken about if something doesn't happen or does happen on the government side. It sets a precedent, and I've got to take that into account as well.
I think we need to move on. I'm inclined not to accept the motion, I have to say, because I think that what you'd be doing then is really saying that every time we get to the third reading you're going to invoke a principle of the practice of this House which doesn't exist. That's my view, and it would be another bill on another day where a member is invoking a principle—a very strongly-held principle—that the third reading must have a gap between for people to consider it. That is not how the House has operated. Having considered the matter—and having the time that I needed to do that in not having had it before me, as I said at the start—and actually having even been prepared to consider that motion going ahead just a few minutes ago, that's certainly not in the interests of the House because it would mean that every piece of legislation could be disrupted in that fashion. So I'm not going to allow the motion. The Leader of the House.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (17:27): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the motion for the third reading being moved without delay.
Mr Burke: What we have right now is an attempt, I presume, to prevent amendments being moved to the bill. I presume that's part of the impact of this, if we go to the third reading. And—
The SPEAKER: Just so that I'm clear: the Leader of the House—
Mr Burke: I don't think he means to move it yet.
The SPEAKER: No, I just want to check on this. The Leader of the House has moved the contingent motion. This is what happens when we get into this sort of territory. I've looked at this fairly carefully because we've had a lot of contingent motions to deal with, certainly in the last parliament and some in this parliament. The Manager of Opposition Business is completely right when he implies, if not states, that the contingent motion has been moved when leave for the third reading has been denied. The Leader of the House has moved it now. A contingent motion can be moved immediately when the second reading has been dealt with and that's what he's done. The effect is that it does cut everything else off, that's true.
Mr Burke: With consideration in detail: the concept of the rights of any member to be able to move an amendment to legislation, amendments that are flagged in some of the speeches, is just wiped out. It's not like—
The SPEAKER: I will just say to the Manager of Opposition Business that he needs to resume his seat because I will now reverse the argument that he was making. That has not gone through—the House will now decide that. The House will make a decision on it. And you're speaking.
Mr Burke: Yes. The outcome of this will be that amendments that were flagged, and flagged by members of the crossbench as well, won't even be allowed to be voted on. That's what the Leader of the House is saying right now. A member of parliament flags an amendment that they want to move, and the Leader of the House won't even allow it to be voted on. It's not just, 'We'll steamroll your amendments,' but, 'You won't even be allowed to make your case.' That's what the Leader of the House is saying.
Mr PORTER: I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is the question be put.
The House divided. [17:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:36): The question now is that the motion moved by the Leader of the House be agreed to.
The House divided. [17:36]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (17:37): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (17:37): I move an amendment to delete the word 'now' and insert the word 'not'.
The SPEAKER: Hang on. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has the call.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (17:37): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be put.
The House divided. [17:38]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (17:39): The question now is that this bill be read a third time.
The House divided. [17:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
ADJOURNMENT
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (17:41): I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (17:42): The fact is that this has been a pointless exercise because—
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (17:42): I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be put.
The SPEAKER (17:44): The question is that the House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER (17:46): I'm going to table a document that expresses how the members for Melbourne and Clark would have voted on a range of motions. That's been presented to me by the Manager of Opposition Business.
House adjourned at 17:4 7
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Zimmerman) took the chair at 10:08, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.
The House divided. [17:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [17:45]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Zimmerman) took the chair at 10:08, a division having been called in the House of Representatives.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Economy
Mr CLARE (Blaxland) (10:08): I'll never forget the day that my dad came home and told us that he'd lost his job. I remember the fear in his face. I remember the reaction from my mum. I remember the conversations in the kitchen about how we were going to pay the mortgage and how we were going to pay the bills. That was almost 30 years ago. You can tell that story now and times it by a million, with more than a million people having the same sorts of conversations in their kitchens right now, thinking about how they're going to pay the bills. Yesterday, they got told what we already know—that we're in recession. We heard lots of stories about statistics and saw lots of graphs, but what this really means is pain and worry and anxiety. Recessions crush people.
There are two things we know about recessions. The first thing is that unemployment goes up fast and that it takes a long, long time to come down. The government said yesterday that unemployment will still be up at seven per cent in two years time. If that's right, that will mean that hundreds of thousands of people are going to have their lives ruined over the next two years.
The other thing that we know about recessions is this: they tend to hit poor people harder than they hit the rich. You can see that in my electorate. It's one of the poorest in the country and, over the last few months, more people have lost their job in my electorate than almost any other electorate in the country. As I think about the months ahead, I fear that, as tough as the last six months have been, the next six months could be even tougher. Unemployment will keep going up. We're told another 400,000 people are going to lose their job by Christmas and, next month, people have got to start paying their mortgages again. Hundreds of thousands of people have deferred paying their mortgages. That all starts again in October. Lots of people have deferred paying their rent. That ends next month as well and people will have to start paying their rent again, plus the debt that they've incurred over the last six months. Half a million people have drained their superannuation dry, and many just to pay the bills. There's nothing left now for them to keep paying the bills. At the same time as all this is happening, help from the government is going down. The pension has been frozen and they're talking about freezing superannuation, and support like JobKeeper and JobSeeker is going to be cut. So the problem is getting bigger and the help from the government is getting smaller. This is really important. My dad eventually got another job, and there are more than a million people around Australia right now who are urging the government on. They want their future back and I hope the government is up to it.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Someone needs to take the jump to get the call. I call the member for Cowan.
Palmer, Mr Clive
Dr ALY (Cowan) (10:11): Clive Palmer announced this week that he's suing Mark McGowan for defamation. Clive is not wrong that he's become 'the subject of ridicule and contempt' and suffered 'damage' to his reputation in Western Australia. However, it is safe to say that much of that is entirely of his own doing. Clive Palmer's arrogant and out-of-touch campaign to force WA borders to open is why he's the subject of ridicule and contempt. People have had enough of him blanketing Western Australian airways, newspapers and mailboxes with ads. Earlier this week, a local Cowan resident, 13-year-old Erin, had her story shared on 720 ABC Radio. She's got a part-time job delivering flyers in letterboxes and was fed up with delivering the yellow pamphlets full of misinformation that were downplaying the risk of COVID-19 to Western Australians. I share her pain. Yellow used to be my favourite colour. She spoke to her boss and told her boss that she didn't want to deliver those pamphlets anymore and ended up taking a pay cut rather than delivering them. I really applaud Erin for standing up for her values.
She's far from alone in her feelings towards Clive Palmer. Here are some comments that some people have made about Clive Palmer on my Facebook page. Andrew said, 'He's a bully, desperately trying to defend himself. Mark McGowan only said what many Western Australians think.' Elizabeth said, 'Clive's own words and actions are why I hold him in contempt, and I'm going back to his meddling in the last election.' Anne said, 'Clive should sue himself, then. He damages his own reputation.' John said, 'He's beyond contempt and he alone is responsible for his trashed reputation.' This is just a small selection of the things that people are saying. David said, 'Palmer's reputation is not paying out the entitlements to his employees when Yabulu went bust. It's impossible to injure his reputation any more than he has done to himself.' Donald said, 'Not a person that is in any way nice. A self-interested person. He has enough money to do all these legal fights. Then he should stump up for the losses of Queensland Nickel and all the people and businesses that got harmed in that collapse.' And Jerry said, 'Clive Palmer is upset because McGowan has described him as an enemy of the WA people, but how else would you describe someone who would wantonly expose us to deadly disease?' This man is not alone. None of these people are alone, and this is the man that our Attorney-General and our Prime Minister supported. Shame on them!
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Assuming there are members seeking the call, to restore the natural order, I will call two government members to rebalance the ordering.
COVID-19: State and Territory Border Closures
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (10:14): This will be my fifth speech this fortnight on the excessive border closures that are devastating individuals, businesses and communities in the electorate of Mallee. I have heard many sad stories over the past few weeks, including from John Fader and Denise Knight, who have been denied access to medical treatment in South Australia. But there have also been some good outcomes.
On Wednesday afternoon I informed the house about David, a farmer from the Mallee. David required urgent surgery for a malignant brain tumour and had followed all requirements to travel via Melbourne to Sydney, but was stalled by a 14-day quarantine period. Meanwhile, his surgeon, Charlie Teo, said that the tumour was growing by the day and that 14 days may make it inoperable. David's wife, Michelle, contacted me in desperation, seeking help. I immediately contacted the Prime Minister to request his assistant. The Prime Minister then contact the New South Wales Minister for Health, Brad Hazzard, to see what could be done. Today, I am happy to inform the house that David received an exemption from quarantine, and the operation was performed successfully yesterday. David is now recovering in intensive care. Michelle is so grateful. I'd like to thank the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health, Brad Hazzard, for their support.
While it is a great result, it really should not be this difficult. Families like David and Michelle should not need to enlist the support of the highest office in the country to access life-saving medical treatment. While this is one good story, there are still many people suffering due to these border closures. Take Angela from Mildura, for example. Her father passed away last week and sadly she was not able to get an end-of-life permit prior to him going. She is now desperate—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10 : 16 to 10 : 34
Dr WEBSTER: Angela is now desperate to travel to Broken Hill to attend his funeral with her family and friends. She was first told that she would need to fly into Sydney from Melbourne and enter hotel quarantine instead of taking the three-hour drive across the border between two COVID-free areas. Angela has the capacity to self-isolate in Mildura and then drive directly there. The family is happy to delay the funeral by 14 days to give her that time to travel. I hope that common sense and compassion can prevail for Angela and her family.
While I welcome the reintroduction of border zones for the New South Wales borders, what we need are free borders. Until we have them, we will continue to hear cases of grief and hardship in every affected state.
Australian Labor Party: Trade Unions
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:35): I believe that most Australians have known for years that the Labor Party have no interest in what matters to the ordinary worker. Gone are the days when the Labor Party benches in this place and in the Queensland parliament were filled with working men and women. They have turned their back on Australian workers, and the Australian people have known this for some time. Australians saw this in Labor's $387 billion of extra taxes on our workers and retirees that the ALP took to the last election. They have seen it in Labor's fierce opposition to every necessary reform that this coalition government has brought forward to clean up the bullying, intimidation and criminal behaviour faced by workers on our nation's building sites. Queenslanders have seen it in Queensland Labor's refusal to get behind any proposal that will create jobs outside of metropolitan Brisbane. In fact, until now, only one group would stand up for Labor's credentials—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 10:37 to 10:52
Mr WALLACE: I rise in continuation. Until now, only one group would stand up for Labor's credentials with the workers, and that was the CFMEU—but no more. Apparently, this love affair is over. Even Australia's most militant union have had enough of Queensland Labor. According to recent media reports, they are pulling out of their Queensland Labor Party faction. The reason: because even the CFMEU have recognised that Labor is a 'creche for party hacks'. In what is almost poetry for an organisation more used to using four-letter expletives, they described Queensland Labor as 'an impotent and self-serving echo chamber for a cabal of Peel Street elite'. We are told that the CFMEU have in recent months called former Treasurer Jackie Trad a dud and criticised the Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk for failing to support job-creating industries in regional Queensland.
When even the CFMEU are supposedly sick of the Queensland government's endless failures, will we finally see Labor change? Of course not. Sadly, in truth, the CFMEU care no more for workers than Queensland Labor do. This name-calling will end up just another token gesture. In the coming Queensland election, they will continue to pour millions of dollars into Labor's coffers and send CFMEU members out to our regions to attack LNP candidates who are truly fighting for local workers. Worst of all, Labor will continue to accept their money, despite more than 2,000 separate cases of illegal behaviour on the part of this union and its officials. Despite the union amassing more than $17 million in fines and openly flouting the law, Labor will continue to accept the CFMEU's millions of dollars every year. Only the LNP can provide an effective government. (Time expired)
Srebrenica Massacre: 25th Anniversary
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (10:54): This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Bosnian genocide in which 8,732 men, women and children were mercilessly killed in Srebrenica on or around 11 July 1995. Described by the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres as the worst atrocity crime on European soil since World War II, the callous brutality still haunts those who survived but witnessed the killings and the body parts then being scattered around 570 mass graves in an attempt to conceal the victims' identities. To date, the bodies of around 6,500 of those who perished have been recovered and identified, but more than 1,000 are still to be found.
Every year on 11 July Adelaide's Bosnian Muslim community hold a service to remember those who were killed to draw attention to the injustices that they are still subjected to, and to hold to account those responsible for the atrocities in the hope that similar events will not be repeated. As I do each year, I attended this year's service, along with my state parliamentary colleagues Stephen Mullighan, Joe Szakacs and Katrine Hildyard; former state MPs Michael Atkinson and Jennifer Rankine; mayor of the City of Charles Sturt, Angela Evans; and former Port Adelaide Enfield mayor Gary Johanson.
The service began with a passionate address from the president of the Bosnia-Herzegovina Muslim Society of South Australia, Sam Hasic. We then heard heart-wrenching personal accounts of the atrocities from Mahira Hasonovic and Mehmed Mutafic. I will quote from Mahira's speech, where she describes the pain of losing her father, a school teacher, who was found around 13 years after he disappeared, having left behind his wife and four young children. She said:
To lose your father is hard.
But to lose him that way is unbearable.
When they speak about his death, I get up and leave or I mention God to strengthen my heart in those moments.
My father was shot execution style.
His body was buried in a mass grave.
And moved and moved again.
His bones were never all found.
A quarter of a century has passed, but for so many Bosnians the grieving, suffering and injustices continue. Loved ones are still missing and yet even in the face of war crime convictions in the International Court of Justice and the UN war crimes court, the findings of mass graves and eyewitness statements there are still denials and attempts to cover up or erase the war crimes from history. Today, I stand in solidarity with the Bosnian people in remembering the victims of the Bosnian genocide.
Bonner Electorate: Legacy Week
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:57): During Legacy Week I would like to take this opportunity to commend local organisations in my electorate of Bonner who are supporting our veteran community. In the span of a couple of weeks, we marked the anniversary of the end of World War II, Vietnam Veterans Day and the Malaya and Borneo Veterans Day.
Last month I attended a local service to commemorate Vietnam Veterans Day, hosted by the Manly-Lota RSL. And although it was a small, private affair due to COVID restrictions, it was great to see the local community showing its support to our veterans. Sadly, the Manly-Lota RSL subbranch recently lost one of our World War II veterans, William George Stanley, who passed away on 22 August, aged 94. He is remembered by his wife, Mrs Rose Stanley, and I pass on my deepest condolences.
Only the week prior, on 15 August, we marked 75 years since the end of World War II. In those 75 years we have never forgotten the service and sacrifice of those men and women—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Si tting suspended from 10:57 to 11 : 15
Mr VASTA: Only the week prior, on 15 August, we marked 75 years since the end of World War II. Throughout those 75 years we've never forgotten the service and sacrifice of those men and women who fought to protect our great nation. This year has been unprecedented in so many ways, and the coronavirus crisis has heightened many of the pressures that our veterans and families are experiencing. That's why it's more important than ever that we all do what we can to help organisations, like Legacy Australia, that support our veterans and families.
I am proud to say that the Morrison government is delivering on its commitment to address the unacceptably high suicide rate amongst Australia's Defence Force members and veterans by establishing the National Commissioner for Defence and Veteran Suicide Prevention. I commend my colleague the member for Herbert, Phil Thompson, for advocating heavily in this space and working with our Minister for Veterans' Affairs to improve support measures for veterans. I'd like to acknowledge Mr Terry McNally, who is tireless in his support of the veteran community. Well done, Terry. It is critical our government continuously work to better understand all the factors connected to suicide and strive to build a better system of support for our ADF veterans. I thank all our veterans and organisations supporting our veteran community.
Aged Care
Parliamentary Friends of Pain Management Group
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (11:16): Last night I participated in a Health Services Union facilitated link-up with aged-care workers from community and residential care— (Quorum formed) Last night, I participated in a Health Services Union facilitated link-up with aged-care workers from community and residential care in New South Wales and ACT. They came after long a day at work. Those workers are on the front line and, to be frank, are doing it tough. The clear message was that the time for empty thankyous is over and we need solutions and decisive action. Our aged-care sector desperately needs more staff with greater training and higher pay. As those in the link-up said, for too long the system has relied on the goodwill of an underpaid and undervalued workforce. Labor has already outlined some immediate steps the government must take to start the process of fixing Australia's broken aged-care system. These include: minimum staffing levels; reducing the Home Care Package waiting list; ensuring better transparency and accountability; ensuring every residential aged-care facility has adequate PPE; better training for staff, including on infection control; and a real surge workforce strategy. The government's failings are well documented and have been nothing short of tragic. There have been over 400 deaths of aged-care residents and over 800 active cases of COVID-19 in residential care. Staff and community in residential care are under enormous pressure and need action now.
The other matter I wish to quickly address is the recently formed Parliamentary Friends of Pain Management Group, which I co-chair along with Senator Wendy Askew. The friendship group has been established to help raise awareness of the challenges faced by over 3.7 million Australians living with sometimes multiple chronic pain conditions daily. As we face unprecedented times, with unprecedented health challenges, it can be difficult for some of the most vulnerable in our communities to locate and access pain services—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Are all members of government leaving the chamber?
Mr DAVID SMITH: What a disgrace! What a disgrace! Obviously, they do not care about pain management across the community. Deputy Speaker, what an absolute disgrace.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for his contribution.
(Quorum formed)
Robertson Electorate: Energy
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (11:28): Energy bills are one of the largest overheads for volunteer and community organisations, so the Morrison government is committed to easing some of these financial pressures through the Energy Efficient Communities Program to help ensure these groups can get on with the important work that they do in our communities. The grants are designed to help organisations by upgrading equipment that reduces energy consumption by investing in emissions monitoring or completing energy systems assessments, or for energy generation and storage projects. The program will deliver $40 million in grants to help businesses and community groups lower their energy bills and reduce emissions across Australia.
I'd like to commend several groups in my electorate for having grants awarded of up to $12,500 for some energy-saving projects locally. These include the Green Point Community Centre, Copacabana Surf Life Saving Club, Breakers Indoor Sports Stadium, Central Coast Marine Discovery Centre, Kincumber Bensville Scout Group and Kariong Scouts Group.
I recently had the pleasure of visiting Green Point Community Centre to see some of the wonderful programs that they are running to help local residents, including counselling, computer lessons and tax assistance for seniors. Marie James from the centre explained that the Energy Efficient Communities Program meant they were able to improve their environmental footprint while also offsetting energy costs. She said that the money the centre was saving on their electricity bill was going straight to the programs and services they offer that are so vital for Green Point community residents.
John Asquith, from the Central Coast Marine Discovery Centre, said that, for the first time in history, he was looking forward to receiving their quarterly power bill to see what impact the recently installed solar panels would have. These solar panels have enabled the centre to add 10 kilowatts of energy to their premises. John said, 'Half of the energy is now being used to offset the power consumption of the fish tanks that we have, and the other half is being used to offset the energy in our cafe, so that we can continue to provide our services to tourists and local families.' He added that the volunteers at the centre were also thrilled that they were able to do their bit to reduce carbon emissions—an issue that so many of their volunteers are particularly passionate about.
Amanda, from the Breakers indoor basketball stadium, said that she was appreciative of the initiative because energy was one of the largest running costs for the stadium. The savings they generate will allow for more competitions, training and support for local athletes.
The Energy Efficient Communities Program has benefited so many people in my electorate of Robertson. I commend these local grants and these local community groups for what they are doing in contributing to building a better community across the Central Coast.
Coalition Government: COVID-19
Superannuation
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (11:31): During this pandemic, my office has worked with many people, from constituents, large manufacturers and one of Australia's largest chemical manufacturers to small business, and there has been a consistent message: people want and need help—help to keep the doors open, help to keep their staff in jobs. Sadly, this government have not done the best job they possibly could in this situation. I know that they're comparing themselves to many countries across the world. But, honestly, they were tardy in the JobSeeker and JobKeeper programs, they've made a mess of the economic response; they resisted Labor's calls for a wage subsidy and then they abandoned some of our critical workers—casual workers, and local government employees that fix the roads and collect the rubbish: why don't they deserve some sort of job linkage? They seized the opportunity to dismantle COAG, again turning their back on local government, one of the key levels of government during this pandemic, and they haven't provided enough financial support for many, many Australians.
Indeed, many small businesses in my electorate value the role of superannuation. They value the role it plays in their staff's lives, in their retirement, and in reducing the burden of age pensions. We're proud to call Paul Keating the grandfather of superannuation. We know that Labor, in partnership with employers, delivered super to support workers. We understand the true partnership between business and the people that they employ, and we know that both want to do well out of that partnership. They want to prosper together so that our nation prospers along with them. Superannuation is not some ceramic piggy bank that you take the hammer to when things are going a little bit wonky. We want to preserve that piggy bank so that people can rely on that superannuation in their older years. Tough times are not a mandate to undermine Australian super.
We know that the Liberal government, sadly, hates super, for whatever reason; we'll never know. It's in their DNA. It's why John Howard successfully stalled superannuation contributions for more than 11 years. It would seem that the Prime Minister is desperate to try and recycle old doctrine, under the guise of blaming business. It's just not good enough. To the people of Paterson: I want you to know that a Labor government will protect your superannuation. We won't take a hammer to your piggy bank. We want you to fill that piggy bank as much as you can during your working life.
NRL Indigenous Round: Uncle Joe Walker
Page Electorate: Community Awards
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (11:24): I would like to recognise the work of Joseph Walker, Uncle Joe, a local Indigenous artist from Yamba. Uncle Joe's artwork was used by the South Sydney Rabbitohs for their jersey for the NRL Indigenous round this year. The jersey design focused on the Rabbitoh in the middle of the chest. It had handprints of all the current Aboriginal players and also acknowledged their heritage by displaying totems. The totems represented where each player was from. The design then connected the totems to the central Rabbitoh, which represented all their journeys going to the club. Uncle Joe said that seeing them run out in the jersey was a very special moment.
Uncle Joe was born in Casino and grew up at the Tabulam Aboriginal Reserve with his seven siblings. He is a proud Bundjalung man and played for the Tabulam Turtle Divers. He currently works with Ngunya Jarjum, teaching art to young people. One of the players this year who wore the jersey was Uncle Joe's nephew Cody Walker. James Roberts, another Bundjalung local, also plays in the Rabbitoh's side. Uncle Joe has five children—Shantai and Destinee, who both helped with the jersey design, and Joseph Jnr, Jordan and Cody, who was named in the Wallabies Under 20s. Congratulations, Uncle Joe, for being recognised for the very talented man that you are.
I would like to recognise 18-year-old Theo Scholl, a great young member of my community. Theo is in Year 12 at St Mary's in Casino and recently won the school based Trainee of the Year award at the North Coast and Mid North Coast Training Awards. He works as a storekeeper at the Richmond Valley Council and is completing his certificate II in warehousing operations. Theo also a member of the RFS. He joined at the age of 12 and has been heavily involved ever. he was 12. He was heavily involved in fighting the recent bushfires. It was great to introduce Theo to the Prime Minister when he dropped into the RFS Fire Control Centre in Casino last year. In recognition of this effort, Theo has also been named as a New South Wales RFS finalist in the 2020 New South Wales Rotary Emergency Services Community Award. Theo, I know your family—your mum Connie, Wayne, Trevor, Ali, Dominic, Sebastian, Kyle and Tyrese are extremely proud of you. Congratulation and thank you for what you do in our community.
I would like to recognise 14-year-old Harley Walters, a young surfer from Angourie. This year, Harley has won the under-16 Surfing New South Wales Junior State Title. The surfing state title is a massive achievement for Harley. He outperformed older and more experienced surfers and the win was certainly no easy feat. Harley's older brother Dakoda is also one of the best young surfers in Australia also. Harley's win proved that he is much more than just Dakoda's little brother. Congratulations on the win, Harley, and I look forward to seeing you and Dakoda continue to excel.
COVID-19: International Travel
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (11:36): Like members around Australia, I have been hearing from and trying to assist dozens of people every week who are simply trying to get home from overseas or in some cases hoping to travel in order to be with loved ones who are seriously ill. This global pandemic has turned our world upside down. It has changed a world in which many of us in a country like Australia had previously been able to take national and international travel in our stride with relative ease. That is no longer the case.
In WA, we absolutely understand the need for a strong approach to borders and we will defend that approach, the approach taken by the McGowan government, against the black and yellow menace of Clive Palmer and his Liberal Party boosters over here. Our strong border approach has kept us safe and, to a large degree, it has kept our economy going, which is good for WA and it is vital for Australia as a whole. But, of course, there have been enormous personal impacts and a lot of heartache as a result of people being stranded overseas. With proper border and quarantine arrangements, there should be a workable and fair system to get people home. There are 23,000 Australian citizens currently stuck in other countries. Of that group, 3,450 are considered medically or financially vulnerable. Labor is today calling on the government to do more to address this issue, including through support for charter flights and by taking strong action against some of the terrible price gouging that is going on.
In the early months of the pandemic, I worked to support the family of a young man hospitalised in Africa and, shortly after that, an elderly couple who disembarked a cruise ship in Italy and were stuck there. My office has sought to help Stephen, Christina and their two young children who were in the Philippines when the pandemic took off. They couldn't secure flights. They travelled to Hong Kong and were then stuck for weeks in hotel lockdown as their money began to run out. It was not until the end of June that they made it back to Fremantle.
Australians understand that the circumstances we face require discipline, forbearance and sacrifice. They understand that flights are limited. Our consular services are under strain and our system of hotel quarantine can only work effectively if the stream of people coming through is kept to a manageable level. But we should not underestimate the stress, anxiety and fear that many of our fellow citizens are facing in seeking to come home or to visit a relative overseas who is coming to the end of their life. It certainly doesn't help when it turns out that approvals to travel have been granted to people going off to collect and return to Australia with a yacht, or when a former Prime Minister gets to jet off to the UK in pursuit of a new and lucrative job.
All Australians need to have confidence that there is a system in place that is sensible, transparent, properly resourced and fair, and the government needs to do a lot more to assist stranded and vulnerable citizens. It's not happening at the moment. There are thousands of people who are financially and medically vulnerable. They need assistance and the government should be pulling out all stops to help get them home.
Agricultural Field Days
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (11:40): Just a few weeks ago, I'd say about five or six weeks ago, the federal government announced support for country rural shows to compensate for the fact that virtually all of them have been cancelled this year due to COVID and they have ongoing expenses, whether it be insurance, water or electricity. They are able to retrospectively claim for costs that they incur just keeping the doors open, if you like, because we want them all to be back next year.
The last couple of days we announced that we are extending the same kind of support for agricultural field days, and that's a very important marker for me in my electorate of Grey. We have two large field days that operate in the electorate of Grey which basically aim at the big end of farming. It's the broadacre agricultural sector of South Australia that come to these two field days. One is held on the Yorke Peninsula at Paskeville and the other one is held at Cleve on Eyre Peninsula. They're biennial events that alternate. This year it was to be the Eyre Peninsula's field days. Unfortunately, they've been cancelled, so it's going to be four years between Eyre Peninsula field days, and of course they continue to incur costs, just like every other site.
Field days, like showgrounds, often have a lot of infrastructure on them—sheds and things that need to be insured. They've become very large events. We expect crowds in the vicinity of 20,000 to 40,000 at these events. There is a lot of by-product. Machinery and things like new technologies, electronics, energy technologies and ag science are on show at the field days for the big end of town. To the wider rural community, we have things like boarding schools, tool shops, electronic wares, fashions and cooking demonstrations—right down the line—so there's a lot of interest for all the people in the family. They're great events. The Eyre Peninsula field days will now be able to claim expenses.
One thing I will have to bring to the minister's attention is that I understand it's a 12-month program, but this is a two-year deferral of the field day. It's actually four years between income events. I believe I will be able to take a reasonable kind of argument to the minister on that case but, in any case, there is some support in the pipeline. They can be dead sure the member for Grey will be in their corner batting for them. It was the obvious thing to do after we supported agricultural shows, but even though it may be obvious I can tell you it is most welcome.
COVID-19: Employment
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (11:43): 2020 has been a year like no other. First there was the summer bushfires, then the floods and now the virus. Yesterday we had confirmed what so many Australians already knew: Australia is in the deepest recession our country has faced. More than one million Australians are now unemployed, with another 400,000 expected to lose their jobs between now and Christmas. These are devastating numbers, but what sits behind the numbers is worse: the human consequences.
This recession is exposing entrenched inequality across Australia by age, income, gender and geography. The coast was hit hard when non-essential services were shut down. This crisis has impacted everyone. Over 10,000 locals have lost their jobs during COVID, over 47 per cent of local businesses have applied for JobKeeper and 10,649 local jobs are supported by JobKeeper. Support has been important during this crisis. However, the government is rushing to withdraw support. Surely this is the worst time to be cutting JobKeeper and JobSeeker. People want to get back to work and businesses want to reopen their doors, but it's not easy to get back on your feet in a recession—harder still when there are 34 jobseekers for every job vacancy on the Central Coast.
Many of the problems in our economy have not been caused by the pandemic but accelerated by it. We've seen this on the coast. Before COVID-19, underemployment of women was the highest in Australia at 34 per cent. Youth unemployment was stubbornly high, sitting at 14.6 per cent. People on the Central Coast and across Australia are doing it tough. We can't afford a generation of Australians lost to long-term unemployment. What Australia needs is a plan, a plan for new and better jobs.
Investment in infrastructure should be central to the post-COVID recovery, instead the coast has been excluded from the Liberals and Nationals' infrastructure list. The Central Coast hasn't had a major infrastructure project since the M1 upgrade when Labor was last in government, under the last Labor minister for infrastructure, Anthony Albanese.
COVID has exposed the vulnerabilities of global supply chains. The coast has a proud history of manufacturing, a strong presence in food manufacturing and the capacity to grow. We need strong investment in local manufacturing on the Central Coast to lead to quality local jobs; investment in the care economy, in aged and disability care, to provide for the 1,226 older people on the coast waiting for home-care packages; and quality jobs for local people seeking work close to home.
Regional communities like ours on the Central Coast and across the country need a plan from the government to protect jobs and to create new jobs. The Central Coast is a proud hardworking community, and with the right support we'll have the best shot at a strong recovery and a better future for our region.
Beirut: Explosion
Abdullah, Antony
Abdullah, Angelina
Abdullah, Sienna
Sakr, Veronique
Mr HAWKE (Mitchell—Minister for International Development and the Pacific and Assistant Defence Minister) (11:46): As the House knows, on 4 August two large blasts reverberated through the port area of Beirut in Lebanon. These blasts caused extensive damage across the city with 6,000 injured and almost 200 killed. The site of that blast is scarred in the memories of millions of people around the world now, and tragically one Australian, young Isaac Oehlers, was killed. We pass our condolences to the family and to everybody affected by this awful tragedy and the ongoing toll that it's taking on the people of Lebanon.
The Australian government quickly provided $5 million in emergency humanitarian assistance for immediate needs. The Australian Embassy was very badly damaged in its nearby location and proximity to the blast. I want to thank those staff for the way they worked to upskill to protect the people who were injured and to immediately re-establish service to the many people who had been affected.
On behalf of the Prime Minister, I was able to chair and convene the leaders of the Lebanese community here in Australia. I want to thank them, from all their different faiths and backgrounds, for the way they came together as one whole family of Australians of Lebanese background to immediately talk about what Australians, with our relative prosperity, could do to help the many family members back in Beirut affected by these blasts. It's amazing stuff, and we are now seeing practical assistance being provided, by so much Australian caring and giving here, to the impacted people.
I have the opportunity today to recognise the awful and tragic event that affected a local group of Australian Lebanese families, Maronite families, the Abdallah, Sakr and Kassas families, after the tragic loss of their children Antony, Angelina, Sienna and Veronique through the actions of a drunk driver. I want to pay particular tribute to the strong faith and the community spirit of the Maronite community in Parramatta coming together. I was able to attend the funeral for the children. It was a great privilege for my wife and I to do so and see the community spirit in action for the grief that was faced by these parents under the most tragic of circumstances.
I also want to say to Danny and Leila—who particularly became quite famous as the mother who had lost two young children in such a terrible tragedy appearing on television candidly and being able to forgive the young male who caused the death of their children—that forgiving that person on TV is one of the most powerful things that I've seen and I know it has impacted a lot of people of faith and people not of faith in Australia. We do want to pass on our love and our care and concern for those families in the ongoing recovery that they face. To Leila and Danny Abdallah, to Bridget and Bob Sakr, to Rania and Assaad Kassas: our thoughts and prayers are with you and, more importantly, the community's support and love for you and all of the children who have survived—we'll be there for you, and together as a family, one community of Sydneysiders, we'll support you anyway we can.
Economy
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (00:00): Yesterday, the great lie of Australian politics was exposed, stripped bare, laid naked, and that great lie is that the Liberals are better economic managers. The party of 'jobs and growth', the party of 'a stronger economy', the party that campaigned on 'back in black' has given Australia its first recession in 29 years. The situation in Tasmania—public capital investment in Tasmania fell by 8.4 per cent in the June quarter when nationally it went up one per cent. This shows that infrastructure spending in Tasmania is woefully inadequate after seven years of incompetent Liberal management at both the federal and state level.
What do industry people say? It's horrific and a very bleak 12 months ahead. That's how Luke Martin from the Tourism Industry Council referred to yesterday's economic figures. We have the first recession in 29 years and one million Australians unemployed for the first time ever under this Liberal government. Some 400,000 more Australians are expected to join them by Christmas under this Liberal government. Hundreds of thousands of Australians have simply given up looking for work and aren't even on the books under this Liberal government. One million Australians have lost their job and yet Richard Colbeck has kept his. What an absolute disgrace. JobKeeper works, but only for some.
This recession will be deeper and longer because of underlying weaknesses after seven years of incompetent and lazy Liberal management. They can't put it all down to the pandemic. There were underlying issues before COVID was even on the scene—slowing growth, stagnant wages, business investment going backwards, flatlining productivity, record household debt, record public debt and no energy policy after seven years of government.
Errors and incompetence since COVID came along will make the recession worse than it should be. They were too slow to embrace JobKeeper. It was a Labor and union initiative that the Prime Minister had to be convinced to embrace. When he did, it was too limited. Too many are being left behind. Now they are being too quick to withdraw. Their instincts are all wrong. They've got no plans to replace the supports. Seahorse World Managing Director Craig Hawkins was quoted in The Examiner today as saying, 'When JobKeeper is gone, it makes it uneconomic to have extra staff on.' That will be the cost. When JobKeeper goes, we will see the unemployment queues get longer.
This government confuse an announcement with action. They think a slogan is the same as a solution. Their signature plans have been a farce, like HomeBuilder. There's no public housing and no rebuilding of bushfire communities. They have gutted superannuation. They have privatised the pandemic. They have put the economic burden of this pandemic onto the shoulders of working families. They should stand condemned for it.
Calare Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours
Mr GEE (Calare—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Decentralisation and Regional Education) (11:52): Today I rise to pay tribute to those wonderful Australians who live in Calare who were recognised in the Queen's Birthday honours list. We're very proud of them. Well done to the following recipients for receiving the prestigious Medal of the Order of Australia.
Vicki Wilson OAM from South Bathurst was recognised for her services to the community of Bathurst. Vicki moved to Bathurst 35 years ago and quickly became a prominent figure in the local community. She has been an executive committee member of the Bathurst Agricultural, Horticultural and Pastoral Association since 2016 and was made a life member in 2018. She has been the owner of Town and Country Rural Supplies since 1990, has been involved with the Rockley Rodeo, was the Bathurst Regional Council Citizen of the Year in 2018 and is a life member of the Scots school. But the honour she's most proud of is being the coordinator of the Bathurst Show's showgirl program. Well done, Vicki. Thank you for all your wonderful work.
Marie Billington OAM from Llanarth was recognised for service to early childhood education and therapy. Marie came to the central west in 1975 and took up a job at Mitchell College. Her work there led to the development of the early childhood intervention program in 1979. All of her work and energy has gone to helping young children overcome their learning difficulties.
Jennifer Coleman OAM from Orange was recognised for her service to community mental health. This work has been critical, especially as Calare, like many communities, has been devastated by drought, fires and COVID-19.
Dr Ben Gelin OAM from Bathurst was recognised for his service to music and to the community of Bathurst. He moved to Bathurst from Tasmania in 1984, where he served as an associate professor of law at Charles Sturt University for 10 years and ran a successful law firm for many years.
Janet Page OAM from Napoleon Reef was recognised for services to the community and to education. Janet was a lecturer in social education at Charles Sturt University from 2002 to 2004, an adjunct lecturer from 2005 to 2006 and a mathematics lecturer from 2006 to 2012.
Elizabeth Zachulski OAM from Llanarth was recognised for her services to aged care and to nursing. She's a familiar face at St Catherine's Aged Care and has spent the past 12 years as the facility's residential manager.
I also offer huge congratulations to Senior Assistant Superintendent Andrew Child ACM for receiving the Australian Corrections Medal. Andrew's extensive career in Corrective Services NSW began in 1986 and he's been recognised for his volunteer work with the Rural Fire Service during the devastating bushfire season. I'd also like to congratulate Group Captain Christopher Sharp AFSM of Chifley Zone, Lithgow Team, Area Western, for receiving the Australian Fire Service Medal award. Chris has been recognised for his extensive commitment and dedication to communities in fighting fires. I also mention Professor Lesley Forster AM, Charles Sturt University's inaugural Dean of Rural Medicine, for her significant service to tertiary education, rural public health and medical administration. I say to all of you: congratulations on all of your achievements. This House recognises and appreciates your hard work, commitment and dedication to our community.
COVID-19: International Travel
Chifley Electorate: Pay Parking
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (11:55): I rise today to speak on behalf of constituents of mine who are currently stuck overseas and are trying to get back to Australia, but they are finding difficulties on a range of fronts to do so. I appreciate—
Sitting suspended from 11:55 to 12:02
Mr HUSIC: As I was saying, I was contacted by a couple who are stuck in southern India and are trying desperately to get back to Australia. At the outset, I acknowledge that this is not an easy thing to fix. It requires cooperation between the Australian government and states. The states, in particular, are very conscious of the number of people arriving home from overseas into their jurisdictions, and the federal government has made the decision, which we supported, to close the borders to help ensure that we can limit the spread of coronavirus. However, it is becoming obvious, particularly for people from my area who have been overseas, attending to family issues or looking after relatives who are sick, and who are now wanting to return, that there is an issue with the prices of those tickets. This couple indicated to me that it usually cost them between $500 and $600 economy to get back from overseas on a plane. It is now costing $2,000 to $3,000. We've heard all sorts of horror stories about how much people are being charged and how their flights are being cancelled. This is a real problem for average Australians who are trying to get back to their own country. I am concerned for those constituents of mine experiencing those troubles. I'd urge the government, as I know government MPs have done, to find some sort of resolution to this—opening up capacity, lowering the costs—so that people can return.
The other matter I want to raise is that the major shopping centre in Mount Druitt, Westfield, is introducing pay parking, which is a problem for people who work in the area. Given that we're having a recession and have had major job impacts, increasing the prices on people who are parking their vehicles for extended periods of time is a problem. I understand why the shopping centre is doing it—it's because state governments haven't provided adequate public transport parking—but it is having an impact on a community organisation in our area. We estimate that it will cost $15,000 a year for that organisation, which is providing crucial work in our area, with their employees and volunteers now being charged parking fees. I've raised this with management previously. They've tried to come to a resolution, but they need to do more, particularly for organisations that are providing vital support services in our area.
Petition: Falun Gong
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (12:04): I present a petition drawing attention to the organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China.
The petition read as follows—
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 1,004 citizens
Petition received.
Mr LEESER: Falun Gong is a meditative and spiritual practice that originated in China in 1992. Falun Gong is based on moral principles and is a practice that guides the daily life of practitioners. Its popularity grew quickly. In 1999 the Chinese Communist Party shifted from a generally supportive stance towards Falun Gong to condemning it. Since 1999 Falun Gong has been banned in China, with the Communist Party claiming that it is a dangerous practice and the ban is necessary to maintain social stability.
Since that time Falun Gong practitioners have been forcibly taken to re-education camps, forced to renounce Falun Gong, or pushed out of the country. Persistent allegations of mistreatment have emerged, as have claims that Falun Gong have had their organs harvested to fill the demand for healthy organs for transplant patients. Getting clear information about exactly what is happening to Falun Gong practitioners is extremely difficult. China has admitted in the past to harvesting organs of executed criminals but denies harvesting organs from prisoners of conscience such as Falun Gong adherents. Yet reports of exactly this happening continue to emerge.
In June last year an independent tribunal, led by Britain's Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, judged that forced organ harvesting had been committed for many years throughout China and that there's no evidence of the practice having been stopped. It determined that Falun Gong practitioners have probably been the main source of organ supply.
In 2018 this parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquired into human organ trafficking and organ transplant tourism. Its report cites multiple submissions made by Falun Gong practitioners, who recounted their experience of 'extrajudicial detainment, torture, and unusual medical examinations, which, it is alleged, were undertaken to facilitate organ matching'. The report was unable to conclude exactly what is taking place, but what is certain is that the Chinese Communist Party is seeking the systematic removal and suppression of Falun Gong. This is reason enough for their actions to be condemned. People are being taken away and sent to detention centres, where they're being pushed to renounce their beliefs.
It's not only Falun Gong who are subjected to such treatment. Uyghurs, Christians and others who dare to hold a conviction not prescribed and generated by the Chinese Communist Party find their life and liberty at threat.
History shows us where the suppression of conscience and belief ultimately leads. As the belief and conscience of a person becomes subservient to the state, the value of each person diminishes. Life loses its sanctity. A country that decides what its citizens can believe, what faith they can and cannot practise, is a frightening place. As the Chinese Communist Party usurps family life, movement, the workplace, child-bearing and ultimately conscience, it demonstrates values fundamentally different to those of Australia. Perhaps the most wicked thing about this is that it's defended on the grounds of social harmony. Harmony built on the crushing of minorities is worthless. In tabling this petition I call on the Chinese Communist Party to release Falun Gong practitioners and people of faith who are taken as prisoners of conscience.
Economy
Mr DICK (Oxley) (12:07): Yesterday was the darkest day in the Australian economy in decades. One million Australians don't have a job and 400,000 Australians are joining them by Christmas. Yet the Morrison government still has no jobs plan. The numbers won't be able to do justice to the human cost of this recession. This Morrison government recession destroys jobs and will destroy opportunities for real people and real communities. The seven per cent quarterly GDP slump was also more than three times worse than the previous biggest fall of two per cent in June 1974. When Australians need support, this government has continued to leave them behind. Instead of a jobs plan, the Prime Minister and Treasurer want to wind back JobKeeper, cut wages, cut super and, worst of all, freeze the pension, if you can believe that during a global pandemic.
I'm fearful that the Prime Minister cannot solve this recession, because he has no plans that are proven to ease the burden on Australian businesses and families. They need real solutions and a plan for how we are going to get back to prosperity. The Morrison government's inaction is only going to make the recession deeper and unemployment queues longer, and this is going to leave more Australians behind. Businesses, workers and families are counting on this government to come through with a plan to promote growth, protect and create jobs and set Australia up for the recovery. This is simply not happening.
In my electorate of Oxley, 12,297 people are on JobSeeker. 6,250 people are on JobKeeper. The total number of people on JobSeeker and JobKeeper in the Oxley electorate is 18,547. Every person has a story and every single person matters. Over the past few months, I've visited many local businesses in my community and I've sat down with small-business owners who have been stuck in a holding pattern, unable to offer work, unable to operate their businesses as they used to and unsure of what their economic future looks like for the families that they need to support. Those 18,547 people are not just statistics; they are real people with families to support, and now they are getting further cuts to their businesses and incomes. We must avoid at all cost a lost generation of Australians who are being sacrificed in the worst recession in almost a century. It's time the federal government stopped blaming everyone, stopped the slogans and started delivering for all Australians.
Bradfield Electorate: World War II Veterans
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts) (12:10): On 15 August this year, we marked 75 years since the end of World War II. For many, this was the end of many years of pain, hardship and sacrifices. It is important that we recognise the valuable contributions of our veterans. I had the pleasure of meeting Bradfield constituent and World War II veteran Joan McLean, who enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force at the age of 18. Joan served as both an aircraft woman and a corporal on the cipher team. There she aided in decoding top-secret messages with the Typex cypher machine. She served until the end of World War II and was subsequently awarded the War Medal 1939-45, the Australian Service Medal 1939-45 and the General Service Badge. Joan played a specific and important role in the war effort, as did thousands of other Australians.
On the 75th anniversary of VP Day, it was an honour to hear Joan's stories and to present her with a commemorative medallion and certificate to recognise the contribution that she made to our great nation. Joan, I'm pleased to say, is one of a number of surviving veterans of World War II in my electorate of Bradfield. I want to acknowledge Ms Dorothy Graham, who served in the Australian Army; Mrs Joan Charles, who helped the British Army communicate via Morse code to their soldiers in Germany; Mr Roy Ringrose, who served in the Australian Imperial Force on the anti-aircraft squadron in Darwin; Mr William Skinner, who served in the Royal Australian Air Force in New Guinea, supporting soldiers with the supply of ammunition; and Mrs Therese Russell, who was a cook in the British Army, and she says that, due to her height, she was required to stand on a box when serving food to soldiers.
Just over 75 years ago, VP Day was a time of great joy, following a time of extraordinary sacrifice and following a remarkable effort by so many Australians to protect our nation. Today, we enjoy a lifestyle and a legacy and great good fortune, thanks to their efforts and their extraordinary sacrifice. It is an honour to have had the opportunity to meet Joan McLean, and it's an honour to be able to acknowledge in this parliament the extraordinary contribution made by the constituents I've mentioned, as well as everybody who served our nation in World War II. Today, all of us remain beneficiaries of their legacy of sacrifice and service.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded.
ADJOURNMENT
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (12:13): I move:
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
Employment
Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR (Gorton) (12:14): I received an email this week that highlights the jobs crisis facing Australian workers. Rebecca, who is well-credentialed with four degrees, emailed me to say:
As the shadow Minister for Employment, I thought I would attach part of an email I received yesterday. The email states in black and white that I was one of 1178 applications for a job I applied for.
It is even worse than I thought, the jobs available with the numbers applying.
Thought you might be able to use this as proof of how bad the situation is on the jobs front. The LNP have no plan in place to improve the situation.
The email also states that for those 1,178 applicants:
… those selected via the selection process will be expected to commence in mid-January 2021.
It's truly a shocking figure: 1,178 applicants. This demonstrates that the national average of 13 applicants for every job vacancy, devastating enough as that is, doesn't capture the full scale of the jobs crisis in some sectors.
And yet the government has no credible plan for jobs. In fact, it was recently revealed in questioning by Senator Keneally during a COVID-19 Senate committee hearing that the Prime Minister's JobMaker package doesn't even exist. JobMaker is 'JobFaker'; it's an announceable in search of a policy. There are no interdepartmental working groups. There is no policy outline. There is no public information about JobMaker. There are no estimated numbers of jobs to be created. Those on this side of the House are all too aware that the Prime Minister's marketing based approach to policy is a do nothing approach for the million-plus workers who will soon see JobSeeker payments be cut at the end of this year.
Let me show another example of the government's marketing based approach to job policy. On Tuesday the minister for employment, Senator Cash, put out a media release which stated:
More than 900,000 job seekers are set to benefit from local jobs taskforces with specialised expertise and knowledge to get more Australians back into work.
That was the boast. There was going to be support for 900,000 jobseekers, and this new initiative amounted to $62.8 million. That's $70 for every jobseeker. That is not anything that will provide the succour and the support required for workers who are finding themselves thrown out of the labour market.
There's no plan for JobMaker. There's no detail. There's no goal for how many jobs. There are no infrastructure spends outlined. In fact, it's just pure spin. And now, with this announcement by Senator Cash, we have support of $62 million for 900,000 jobseekers, which amounts to a paltry $70 per jobseeker. That is not enough, and it underlines how little this government is doing to help those Australian workers—over one million Australian workers—who are seeking employment in this country.
COVID-19: Vaccines
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (12:17): You'll never find a better sparring partner than adversity. Throughout history humankind has made discoveries in the most adversarial of circumstances. The internet, microwaves, zips, the wristwatch, disposable tissues, stainless steel surgical instruments, even duct tape were all invented during a time of war. So if adversity is the mother of invention, then the 170-plus COVID vaccine trials around the world offer us a very big dose of hope and optimism that we can beat this pandemic.
This virus has dominated our lives and wreaked havoc on the health and prosperity of almost every nation on this planet. At this stage the best certainty we can have in protecting ourselves is a vaccine. Either that, or the virus becomes less virulent and we learn to live with it as we have with other coronaviruses. This latter idea, however, is a hope rather than a likelihood.
Across the globe our best and brightest researchers, health professionals and scientists are all working in the race to create a COVID-19 vaccine. Australia's most experienced scientists, biotech and pharmaceutical experts are providing advice through the COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments for Australia—Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group. This advisory group, led by Professor Brendan Murphy, our former Chief Medical Officer, will assess and work through all viable options to test, secure and administer a safe and effective vaccine if and when one is found. Australia has always punched above its weight in the field of medical research, and this time is no different. Already three vaccine candidates have begun clinical trials in Australia, including one by the University of Queensland, using molecular clamp technology; one by Flinders University and Adelaide company Vaxine; and one by international company Clover Biopharmaceuticals.
The Morrison government are under no illusion that we can put all our eggs in one basket when it comes to vaccine development. First and foremost, it is imperative we make sure any vaccine is safe and effective. Even if an effective vaccine is found, there is still a possibility that different vaccines will be required for different ages, because it seems that our immune system responds differently to COVID depending on our age. At this stage, the most promising vaccine, because it is the most advanced in testing, is the University of Oxford's COVID-19 vaccine, which has entered its third phase of testing. The results will be known by the end of the year.
The speed of getting a trial of this magnitude to this point is simply phenomenal. Most trials take years. This one has taken a matter of months. But speed should never take precedence over safety, and that is why the federal government has made the first optimistic but cautious agreement with AstraZeneca to procure the Oxford vaccine only if it is both safe and effective. If that vaccine is safe and effective, it will be manufactured on shore by Australia's very own CSL, now a global leader in vaccine manufacturing. Should the vaccine be safe and effective, Australians will be amongst the first in the world to receive it, and I'm proud to say it will be provided free to all Australians.
Despite the stumble of hotel quarantining breaches in Victoria and the subsequent massive community transmission outbreak, Australia is starting to feel like we have turned a corner. Even in Victoria, where we have endured the state's first ever curfew—where five million Melburnians can't leave their home after 8 pm, where five million Melburnians are locked in their homes for 23 hours per day—we are seeing hope in the air. We're looking hopefully to a future where we have curtailed and controlled COVID. Whether the virus itself changes and we learn to live with it or a vaccine is developed, the world hopes to be able to move beyond the global carnage that COVID is currently wreaking. This is a crisis the likes of which we have never seen, but what distinguishes this crisis from the past is our ability to respond in an unprecedented way with globally collaborative research to develop diagnostics and treatments to beat this pandemic.
COVID-19: Employment
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (12:22): In the southern suburbs of Adelaide, we have some of the best local businesses in the country. They are the backbone of our local economy and they provide amazing goods and services to our community and wonderful support. They have been hit very badly during this health pandemic and, indeed, during the recession that we are now having. Some of them, unfortunately, have already closed their doors through no fault of their own. Some businesses have already not been able to weather these difficult times.
Some have been incredibly agile at adapting, and I've met with many business. I met with Kate from Fancy That, a costume-hire company in Christies Beach, who you can imagine has been impacted greatly during this. There is no costume hire with no book week, no fancy dress parties and no big gatherings, but she has done her best to keep the doors open. In fact, she's pivoted to making fabric masks—one way that many businesses have pivoted.
In the initial stages of this crisis, there was enormous uncertainty for months. The JobKeeper wage subsidy that Labor called for has been an important measure to ensure workers were supported and businesses remained open. Many businesses in my electorate that I've spoken to understood the government had to urgently get support out the door. However, David from Hallett Cove told me that while this expedient measure was welcomed, there were inequitable parts of it. There were some who missed out who should've been supported and some who actually got paid more than they were used to. They certainly understood the urgency but they did recognise that it was up to the government to nuance them.
A local swimming centre manager contacted me regarding the lack of nuance in JobKeeper as well. She had a group of employees that had accompanied the business from a previous owner 10 months before JobKeeper kicked in. Despite their talent and experience as swimming instructors and having worked there for many years, because it was considered a new business, they were denied JobKeeper as that business itself had not operated longer than 12 months under the new owners. And a 50-year-old casual worker told me, once again of this difficulty: 'On average I worked 30 hours per week for the last two years working for a labour hire agency, but I won't qualify for JobKeeper because I take whatever shift I can get from different companies. Therefore, I won't qualify.' So there were inequities in this, and businesses that I have been talking to are keen for some of these inequities to be sorted out. They have been very nervous about September and are pleased that the government has announced a continuation of it into March but are concerned about some of the changes that have been made.
There are businesses that continue to take a hit but may not qualify. I spoke to Gabby, a cafe-owner from Morphett Vale, who said: 'It feels unfair that my business continues to take up to a 25 per cent hit each month. It's scary to think if this pattern continues that it means I take these losses on my own. The less than 30 per cent drop means that I will not qualify for JobKeeper or rent relief. My bills will be the same with less income.' There's also Sasha, who has indicated that things aren't back to normal: 'With a shortfall from international suppliers for my products and decisions of charities, who were overrun by donations and gave excess items to landfill, meant that my business has struggled to make the usual products.'
So there are concerns about the impact going forward. The message that I've really had from businesses is that there is still deep uncertainty. The government is treating this like a linear recovery, with a lack of recognition that there is still so much uncertainty out there. I've had a business tell me that even with a small change in restrictions their one-party business, in the seat of Kingston, lost $20,000 in two hours after a slight change in the number of gatherings at a home. So we're not out of the woods yet. There still is great uncertainty and a lack of consumer confidence. We need to make sure that the government doesn't just treat this recovery like a linear recovery. If the circumstances warrant it, support needs to be there for those local businesses who have been impacted through no fault of their own. They are doing their best, and they deserve us to back them.
Victory in the Pacific Day
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (00:00): On 15 August this year, we commemorated the 75th anniversary of the Victory in the Pacific. On this day, the Empire of Japan accepted the allies' demand for an unconditional surrender. For Australians, it meant the end of the Second World War. It was finally over. Almost one million brave Australians put their hand up to serve in World War II. This is a remarkable statistic when one reflects on the fact that our total population was just seven million at the time. Almost 27,000 gave their lives, including many of my fellow Tasmanians.
Tasmania, including the north-west, the west coast and King Island, has a rich history when it comes to the Second World War. Our very own battalion, the 2nd/40th, played a major role throughout the Second World War. My father, my grandfather and many of my ancestors served proudly in the 2nd/40th. In February 1942, whilst operating as part of Sparrow Force in Timor defending an airfield, this Tasmanian infantry battalion was attacked by a very much superior Japanese enemy force. Our Tasmanian battalion was forced to surrender by the Japanese, but not before losing 84 killed in action and 132 were badly wounded. My Great Uncle Jack, Jack Moles, was bayonetted through the leg during this tragic battle and would eventually spend three years of his life in various prisoner of war camps. This is where our Tasmanian service men were put to work on the famous Burma Railway. Uncle Jack would eventually—
(Quorum formed) Jack would eventually come home, but the trauma of those prisoner of war camps would live with him for the remainder of his days.
Other brave Australians served our nation in the far corners of the world, fighting in theatres of war from Europe to North Africa, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific. The conflict also reached Australian shores. It was my privilege on the 75th anniversary to attend a commemorative wreath-laying service at Anzac Park in Ulverstone. It was a wet and cold day in Ulverstone, but that wasn't enough to deter 98-year-old Jack Eaton. He's a true gentleman in every sense of the word. He was in the RAF during the Second World War. He was employed as a radar operator and signaller. We share a lot in common, so we had a good yarn.
Later that afternoon I was honoured to visit 98-year-old veteran Ron Walters at his home at Coroneagh Park to present him his medallion. Ron was born in Smithton in 1921. He served in the Army and was in the Light Horse. He has three sons, all in the Defence Force—one in the Army, one in the Air Force and one in the Navy. His youngest son retired just a few months ago. It is, indeed, true that service truly runs in the blood.
I would also like to acknowledge the following World War II veterans who received the commemorative medallion: Brian Boney, Athol Brown, Stan Holloway, Jack Reading, Vic Webb, Wilfred Rogers, Doug Brooks and James Tyrrell. A grateful nation expresses our sincere thanks to those who served and contributed to the war effort and the freedom of nations.
I'd like to pass on my gratitude to Damien Griffin RFD, President of the RSL sub-branch in Ulverstone; Secretary—and legend—Bill Kaine MBE, OAM; and the members of the Ulverstone sub-branch. They have a fantastic commitment to the commemorations and did a fantastic job. You did Tasmania proud, and you reminded us all that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Lest we forget.
Centrelink
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (12:36): Today, I'd like to raise a very troubling issue. It was brought to my attention by Newcastle based Kelso Lawyers, who specialise in compensation for victims of institutional child sexual abuse. Kelso Lawyers support survivors to undertake civil claims, seeking compensation for sexual abuse directly from institutions like the Catholic Church and state governments. Following a successful mediation, the lawyers provide Centrelink with a settlement agreement, and Centrelink, in turn, provide a formal clearance to the institution, confirming whether the victim owes any money to Centrelink. The institution must either receive a nil clearance or pay the amount owing on the clearance before the funds can be released to the survivor.
In their letter, Kelso Lawyers stressed to me how important a quick Centrelink clearance is for the survivors' healing process. Indeed, this has historically been the case, with Centrelink usually providing these clearances within a week, or two at the very most, of the application. But, in recent months, everything has come to a grinding halt. Shamefully, survivors are now routinely being left waiting a month, two months or even more for Centrelink to complete this vital administrative task.
When Kelso Lawyers contacted me in late July, they had requests dating back to early May. They told me that their attempts to impress on Centrelink the dire impact of the delays on their clients' mental health fell on deaf ears. Centrelink told them of 'major delays' and refused to provide any sort of time frame for a resolution. Shockingly, Kelso Lawyers were even told that 'no priority' would be given to victims of child sexual abuse. Of course, this leaves survivors stuck in limbo and none the wiser about when their ordeal will finally be over and they can start the journey of healing.
When I learnt of this problem, I immediately contacted the shadow minister for government services, the Hon. Bill Shorten, and we wrote a joint letter to the Minister for Social Services, Senator Anne Ruston, and the Minister for Government Services, Stuart Robert MP. We outlined the problem and urged the ministers to urgently investigate the issue and provide Centrelink with the resources necessary to ensure that the agency's time frames don't stand in the way of survivors receiving timely settlements. To their credit, the office of the Minister for Social Services got back to my office very quickly. Within a few days, all but two of the Kelso clients' cases, pending clearances, were resolved. Regretfully, this fix did not last. Within a few weeks, the backlog had built up again, and it is now right back to where it was.
This is untenable. You shouldn't have to complain to your local MP for government to perform its basic responsibilities. It's important to note that most of these survivors have already waited decades to get to this point in their proceedings, so being forced to endure additional wait times for purely administrative reasons is cruel beyond belief. These are the very people who have been on the receiving end of the most abhorrent human behaviour you can imagine. They have been let down in the most appalling way by their abusers, by the institutions and by society. By failing to provide clearances in a timely manner, Centrelink and this government are letting survivors down all over again.
I want to make it clear that Centrelink staff are doing the absolute best they can, but the reality is that they are stretched to the brink. Centrelink is there to serve people who are often at their very lowest ebb. They might have just lost their job, suffered an illness or had to start caring for a loved one who can no longer look after themselves. But too often it only adds to the pain and misery of vulnerable Australians. Regretfully, this is the predictable result of years of neglect at Centrelink—of cuts, of arbitrary staffing caps, of widespread outsourcing of important jobs to labour hire companies.
Four thousand staff have been sacked since 2013, and the agency has progressively outsourced core functions to private companies. The diabolical human cost of not investing properly in public services has been laid bare for all to see in recent months. I call on the government to give Centrelink the resources it needs to ensure that all survivors awaiting clearances are treated with dignity and respect and have their clearances processed as an absolute priority. (Time expired)
Moore Electorate: Economy
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (12:41): I am pleased to contribute to this adjournment debate as parliament rises before the next sitting, scheduled in October, when the federal budget will be delivered, in 33 days time, by setting out some of the key priorities for my electorate. The dominant focus of the budget will be on measures designed to promote economic recovery in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Many people and businesses in my electorate have been adversely affected in this crisis through a loss of employment, a reduction in the value of their assets and an overall decline in their financial security. It has been distressing to see the long queues outside Centrelink in Joondalup, stretching outside the building.
In response, the Morrison government has implemented an economic stimulus package and welfare safety net—
(Quorum formed) Through programs such as JobKeeper and JobSeeker, which are unparalleled by world standards, it is important to continue supporting— (Quorum formed) It is important to continue supporting those temporarily in need, whilst getting Australians back to work as quickly as possible through reskilling programs. The release of the national accounts yesterday, showing a seven per cent fall in gross domestic product from the March quarter, clearly demonstrates that the budget must focus on economic growth by implementing measures to increase productivity, reduce red tape and also address the issues of tax reform and industrial relations reform.
To build our economy, Australians must begin to change their mindset and adopt a more pro-development, entrepreneurial outlook and refrain from regularly objecting to building new agricultural, mining and energy projects by default. We must prioritise new investments and facilitate industries which generate export revenue rather than delay economic development projects through unnecessary green and red tape. We need to stand up to the antidevelopment green brigade, which is seeking to halt economic progress. These are hard times and we must adopt a more industrious mindset in order to lift the Australian economy out of recession, restore the finances of our families and pay down our national debt. The future of our nation and our standard of living depend on economic development.
The financial impact of the pandemic will inevitably delay some of the community projects that have been submitted for consideration in the budget. However, there are few priorities which I would like to strongly advocate for on the parliamentary record. Firstly, a federal contribution to the Sorrento Surf Life Saving Club redevelopment is my top priority because surf life saving is a community service which literally saves lives on our beaches. Our lifesavers are operating from cramped facilities which are close to 40 years old. A federal contribution towards new clubhouse facilities, in conjunction with local and state government support, is warranted. Several surf clubs in the eastern states, such as the North Cronulla Surf Life Saving Club, received building grants of up to $2.9 million, so the precedent is established.
Secondly, a federal contribution to the redevelopment of the clubrooms at Heathridge Park, in conjunction with local and state government funding, will benefit a number of sporting clubs which use the facilities, including the Ocean Ridge junior and amateur football clubs, the Ocean Ridge junior and senior cricket clubs, and the Ocean Ridge Tennis Club. The current clubhouse buildings are more than 30 years old and inadequate to meet the needs of our growing population. The City of Joondalup is preparing a master plan for the redevelopment and, as the local government authority, will take the lead role in project management.
The list of local priorities which I have submitted on behalf of our community for consideration in the budget is comprehensive. I will continue to advocate very strongly for funding to be delivered for my electorate as the financial circumstances permit.
Milosevic, Lance Corporal Stjepan ('Rick')
Martin, Sapper James
Poate, Private Robert
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:50): Eight years ago, almost to the day, Australian soldiers Lance Corporal Rick Milosevic, Sapper James Martin and Private Robert Poate were on deployment in Afghanistan at Patrol Base Wahab in Uruzgan. After an exhausting day of patrolling in more than 50-degree heat, they returned inside the wire of the base they shared with their Afghan National Army allies. Hekmatullah, an Afghan sergeant, moved about the bands of off-duty Australian soldiers who were playing cards to unwind after a long and trying day. He socialised with Aussies in the gym. He entered the Australian administration area, reconnoitring the area and studying force protection measures. He left because it was his turn to be on guard duty. When Hekmatullah returned with his M16 and a full ammunition clip, he closed in within five metres of the Diggers playing cards and emptied his entire clip into our soldiers, killing three and wounding more. He then escaped the base.
This green-on-blue attack was part of an escalating campaign of Taliban insiders in the Afghan army—the greens—killing international forces—the blues—like our soldiers in this case. It was one of the darkest days of the Australian commitment to the war in Afghanistan. A total of 140 coalition troops, including seven Australians, were killed in 85 such insider attacks.
Initially Hekmatullah was arrested by Pakistan, but then he was passed to the Afghan authorities and sentenced to death. Earlier this month we learned that Hekmatullah, who has shown no remorse in prison and said he would do it again, was to be released by the Afghan government with the approval of the United States as part of a broader peace deal.
The families of the three men killed by Hekmatullah are grief stricken at news of his impending release. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that foreign minister Marise Payne and defence minister Linda Reynolds have raised Australia's concern with their US counterparts. The Prime Minister has written to both US President Donald Trump and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani about this issue. Ashraf Ghani himself has said that these men are 'a danger to the world'. Labor leader Anthony Albanese and other opposition frontbenchers have called for the government to avoid a complete failure of diplomacy, which Hekmatullah's release would be. Labor continues to call on all parties to reconsider Hekmatullah's inclusion in this deal, in the interests of justice for the three victims and their families.
These events disturb me. Whilst I don't claim to be an Afghan expert, in 2003 I provided security in Kandahar, which is seen as the spiritual home of the Taliban. We were supporting the build-up of Afghan democratic institutions. Working on behalf of the United Nations mission, I saw a democratic process elect elders to go to Kabul to hammer out their constitution. This taught me a few things, one of which is that the Taliban, who are predominantly Pashtun, observe a tribal system of justice called pashtunwali. Hekmatullah is a Pashtun, in which case he must face justice under the principles of pashtunwali. Of course the Taliban have a history of using and abusing pashtunwali as they see fit, but it's worth pointing out that behaviour such as that displayed by Hekmatullah goes against a traditional institution of pashtunwali. Our three soldiers, who had caused no harm to Hekmatullah or others outside the base, were guests in Afghanistan, invited to intervene not only according to international law but under core principles of Pashtun culture.
While the Taliban are majority Pashtun, so are their victims. Pashtun people have been the most devastated by almost 20 years of war. Hekmatullah's murdering of three Aussie soldiers cannot be considered turah, or bravery, in Pashtun culture, in which melmastia—hospitality—and nunawatai—protection—are even granted to your staunchest enemy upon request.
The Afghan government must exclude Hekmatullah from release, on the basis of his actions. He's not an ordinary Afghan who was wrongfully captured and imprisoned. He is one of 400 hardened fighters and he has murdered Australian soldiers, not in battle but in a cold-blooded insider attack. He is guilty beyond doubt, as courts have proved. I've made a commitment to Private Robert Poate's father, Hugh, that I will fight for his son and his mates who never came home.
We always asked ourselves why we were really in Afghanistan. The answer of course is the US alliance. The Prime Minister needs to pick up the telephone to the US President and stop an unrepentant killer of Aussie diggers from walking free.
Brinkworth, Mr Tom
Mr PASIN (Barker) (12:55): Today I rise to say goodbye to Tom Brinkworth. He died at his home in Kingston on 20 August this year, aged 83. Tom was an important member of the community in the south-east. He was a successful pastoralist. His generosity was as broad as his agricultural holdings. There's no word more fitting to describe Tom than 'determined'. He was a man of steely understated determination. Known for outworking everyone, he kept a magnet on his fridge bearing the words of Winston Churchill—'Never, never, never give up'. He would tell people that he knows only two things in life: you're either going forwards or going backwards; you can't stand still.
Tom developed his business skills from his father. He gave Tom at a young age 100 chooks to take responsibility for. Gradually his responsibility increased. By 19 Tom took out a loan to buy a piggery operating on a modest five acres. Refusing to let the small size of his farm sway him, he regularly worked from 3.30 am until after dark. Before long his hard work had paid off. He grew the piggery to an outstanding 5,000 pigs, making it one of the largest at the time in the Southern Hemisphere.
Tom would regularly remark that the harder he worked the luckier he got. Tom later sold that business to begin purchasing large parcels of land to run cattle, lamb and sheep. By the end of his life Tom ran cattle across a gargantuan one million hectares nationally, 250,000 of which were within my electorate of Barker. He employed some 80 stock hands and hundreds more indirectly. Throughout his 100 properties Tom had an estimated 350,000 head of merino and dorper-cross sheep and lambs and 85,000 head of angus cattle.
Despite his success, Tom never lost touch with his down-to-earth nature. Every morning he could be found in the yards, holding a stick with a plastic bag on the end of it, to crack on with the day's work. Being known for dismissing those born with a silver spoon in their mouths, he judged persons not by what they had but by what they had achieved themselves, knowing that with relentless determination you can always better your life.
Tom made headlines when he took on what many considered the impossible feat of driving 18,000 cattle from Longreach in Queensland to Hay in New South Wales. Drawing inspiration from the ventures of Kidman, Tom undertook this challenge through the peak of a drought. The stakes were high. Still Mr Little, Tom's head drover, described Tom as loving the challenge, especially as on completion he broke Elders's record for the largest one-to-one vendor transaction in the country's history.
Within our community Tom was responsibility for saving Kingston's beloved 17-metre Larry the Lobster from being shipped to WA. He funded significant upgrades to the Kingston hospital to keep it well maintained. In 2005 he sponsored 21 persecuted families from Zimbabwe to live and work on his properties. This not only protected them from persecution but gave them a new start in Australia, ensuring that they could contribute their expertise to our agricultural industry.
I have a personal recollection. I was once in court acting on behalf of a disadvantaged Indigenous man. I was approached by Tom, who was there on an unrelated matter. He said, 'Tony, does your lad want a job?' I said, 'Of course he does, Tom.' He said, 'Get him to the Kingston post office Monday morning at eight and not a minute later. He'll have a job.' He worked for Tom for a long while, and I give Tom credit.
Alongside his agricultural interests and community philanthropy he had a longstanding passion for conservation. Before his passing he secured 30,000 hectares of wetland and surrounding areas for conservation in the south-east as well as a 355 square kilometre property in the Flinders Ranges to rebuild the yellow-footed rock wallaby population and preserve various historical mines and cemetery sites. He had been working for many years to finalise these deals and secure native wetlands and scrub for future generations.
Tom was a man everyone in the community could look to for inspiration. Whether it be in business, philanthropy or conservation, he paved the way for ambitious Australians to know that there really is no limit to what one can achieve in their lifetime. My family and I pass on our condolences to his wife, Pat; sons, Angas and Ben; and daughter, Annabel. I hope they take solace in the knowledge that his achievements have rightfully earnt him a place in Australian history and in the hearts and minds of those lucky enough to live in the south-east of South Australia. Vale, Tom Brinkworth.
Question agreed to.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 13:00
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