The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
COMMITTEES
Petitions Committee
Report
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:01): I present the 20th report of the Petitions Committee for the 46th Parliament, comprising one petition and 39 ministerial responses to petitions previously presented.
This is my last report presentation for what has been an interesting and challenging year. Despite what we have all been through this year, engagement in petitioning has remained high and the committee has continued to be busy facilitating the petitioning process so that people can have their say on issues that matter to them.
This year:
a total of 831 petitions were considered by the committee;
of these, 794 were e-petitions and 37 were on paper;
the committee found that 618 of these petitions met the standing order requirements and were approved;
908,762 signatures were collected on presented petitions; and
410 ministerial responses to petitions were received and presented by me as chair.
We are all looking forward to a new and hopefully prosperous year in 2021 and wish you and our fellow members and citizens the same. The committee expects that petitioning will continue to remain a popular way for people to engage with parliament, and we look forward to our continuing role in supporting and facilitating this important part of our democratic system. I look forward to further updating the House on the work of the committee in the new year.
PETITIONS
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:03): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petition:
Falun Gong
This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that Falun Gong is a peaceful meditation practice based on the principles of Truthfulness, Compassion and Forbearance. Millions of Falun Gong practitioners in China have been fired, jailed, tortured or killed by the Chinese Communist regime since July 1999. There have been persistent reports of systematic, state-sanctioned organ harvesting from non-consenting prisoners of conscience in China, primarily practitioners of Falun Gong. The Independent China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, concluded in its Final Judgement in 2019: "Forced organ harvesting has been committed for year, 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 and 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 policemen who are involved in the persecution of Falun Gong.
from 576 citizens (Petition No. PN0490)
PETITIONS
Responses
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (10:03): I present the following ministerial responses to petitions previously presented:
Hong Kong
Dear Mr O'Dowd
I refer to the correspondence of 25 November 2019 enclosing Petition EN1066 concerning access to Australia's visa programs by British Overseas Nationals resident in Hong Kong. The Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Alan Tudge MP, has asked that I respond on his behalf. I apologise for the delay in responding.
British Overseas Nationals are treated equally in Australia's Migration and Citizenship Program (the Program). The Program is based on a universal, non-discriminatory visa system which focuses on the contribution a person can make to Australia, rather than their ethnicity, gender, political or religious beliefs.
Australia enjoys high levels of social cohesion and broad public support for its Migration Programs. This is in part based around confidence in well-managed, non-discriminatory migration.
Australia's Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) usually include commitments on the movement of natural persons, but these do not provide for unrestricted movement and work rights between the Parties.
FTA commitments build on existing World Trade Organisation temporary entry commitments, which focus on facilitating temporary entry for professionals and skilled workers. Such provisions support broader FTA commitments on trade in services and investment.
Negotiations with the United Kingdom (UK) will seek outcomes that also focus on temporary entry for these types of skilled workers. These should be ambitious outcomes that support services exports to and investments in the UK.
Thank you for bringing Petition EN1066 to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Wood
Australian Olive Industry
Dear Chair
Thank you for your letter of 25 November 2019 to the Hon David Littleproud MP, the then Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, regarding Petition EN1081 (the Petition). Your letter was forwarded to me for reply in September 2020. I apologise for the delay in responding. Nonetheless I am pleased to be given the opportunity to respond to the Petition presented to the House of Representatives on 25 November 2019.
Water supply and security are critical to Australia's prosperity, particularly in our regional communities, where agricultural and primary industries contribute around $60 billion to our economy each year.
The Australian Government is committed to the continued growth and success of these important sectors. As part of the 2020-21 Federal Budget, the Australian Government announced an additional $2 billion for new water infrastructure projects through the National Water Infrastructure Development Fund, taking the Australian Government's commitment to building dams, weirs and pipelines to $3.5 billion.
This commitment forms part of a rolling 10 year water infrastructure investment program that will provide much needed certainty to regional Australia and demonstrates the Australian Government's continued national leadership on water infrastructure planning and development matters. It will deliver increased water security, greater resilience in our regions, more jobs and continued growth in Australia's critical agriculture sector.
The National Water Grid Authority (the Authority), established on 1 October 2019, is working in partnership with state and territory governments to identify, plan and invest in water infrastructure projects across the country.
Guided by world's best science, the National Water Infrastructure Investment Policy Framework, and the National Water Grid Advisory Body announced by me on 14 September 2020, will identify a pipeline of nationally important water infrastructure projects. These projects will increase the capacity, connectivity and resilience of Australia's water storage and supply infrastructure.
The Authority is investigating the opportunities around large-scale water harvesting and transfer schemes, as suggested in the Petition. Examples of these types of schemes include the Bradfield Scheme and related proposals. The Authority is currently working with CSIRO to examine the Bradfield Scheme and variations to assess its viability and to inform future investment decisions. I have also asked the Advisory Body to look at the Bradfield scheme as one of its first priorities. It is anticipated that advice on the Bradfield Scheme and its variants will be provided in mid-2021.
An additional factor of consideration for large-scale water capture, harvesting and transfer schemes relates to the regulation of the water itself. In Australia, state and territory governments are primarily responsible for the planning, management, regulation and allocation of water resources and infrastructure within their jurisdictions. This means that any future schemes involving the harvesting and transfer of water in northern Queensland would require the support of the Queensland Government to proceed.
Thank you again for your correspondence and I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, Mr McCormack
Migration
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 9 April 2020 enclosing Petition EN1263 concerning supporting reduction of the immigration rate. I apologise for the delay in responding.
Australia is a nation built on migration. Migration has brought significant economic benefits and cultural richness to Australia. Australia is also a nation with a history of strong population growth. Population growth has contributed significantly to the Australia we know today - our world class cities, our strong economy, our diverse communities and our way of life. However, the Australian Government recognises the growing population has, in part, contributed to the pressures being felt in Australia's major cities.
That is why the Government released an updated Population Plan - Planning for Australia's Future Population - in September 2019. A key element of the Population Plan is a reduction in the permanent Migration Program from 190,000 to 160,000 places for four years.
The Government is also focused on ensuring Australia's smaller cities and regions have the support they need to grow and prosper. The Government has allocated 11,200 of those 160,000 places in the 2020-21 Migration Program to two dedicated regional skilled visas which require people to live outside Australia's big capitals for three years, before being eligible for permanent residency. The Government is also incentivising international students to study and live in regional areas by providing access to an additional year in Australia on a post-study graduate visa, and through the Destination Australia scholarship program.
Further, within the Partner stream of the 2020-21 Migration Program, priority will be given to applications sponsored by residents in regional Australia to assist growth in regional Australia, while easing the pressure on infrastructure and services in major cities.
Complementing the reduction in migration is the Government's record $100 billion pipeline of transport infrastructure projects over the next 10 years to ease congestion and support liveability. This includes the commitment to introducing fast rail between Australia's major cities and their smaller regional satellite cities, in order to better connect these areas and help to decentralise the Australian population. The $4 billion Urban Congestion Fund is also funding projects aimed at tackling the worst local congestion points in Australian cities.
The Government is planning for the future by working more closely with all levels of government to implement the National Population and Planning Framework, while ensuring that Australia's cities are planned in a more integrated manner through our City and Regional Deals. Additionally, the Government's Centre for Population is providing a central, consistent and expert perspective on population change.
The impacts of COVID-19 are expected to reduce Australia's Net Overseas Migration from around 154,000 in 2019-20 to around -72,000 in 2020-21, which if realised, will be the first instance of negative Net Overseas Migration since 1946. While the Government is taking advantage of this opportunity to bring forward major infrastructure projects , the Government is also aware of the economic risks of continued low levels of migration. The Government will therefore continue to design its Migration Program to balance the migration intake against the evolving needs of the Australian economy , as well as Australia's natural and built environments.
Thank you for bringing Petition EN1263 to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure and Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Tudge
COVID-19: Migration
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 June 2020 enclosing Petition EN1486 concerning the request for an extension for Working Holiday Maker (WHM) visas during COVID-19. The Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Alan Tudge MP, has asked that I respond on his behalf.
From January 2020, the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, progressively announced travel restrictions to curb the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in Australia. From 20 March 2020, a travel ban has been in place prohibiting travel into Australia of all foreign nationals, unless exempted.
These travel restrictions have been successful in slowing the spread of COVID-19 in Australia, and were implemented on the advice of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, as two thirds of Australia's COVID-19 cases had been sourced from overseas during the pandemic.
Under the Migration Regulations 1994, a person who is granted a Working Holiday (subclass 417) or Work and Holiday (subclass 462) visa while outside Australia is permitted to make their first entry to Australia up to 12 months from the date of grant. There is no provision in the current legislation to extend this date once the visa has been granted. The eligible age range for WHM visa applicants is also set in legislation according to arrangements previously negotiated bilaterally with each partner country.
WHM visa holders who were unable to enter Australia before their visas expired can choose to apply for a new visa when travel restrictions are lifted if they are still able to meet the eligibility criteria.
The Joint Standing Committee on Migration has recently completed their Inquiry into the Working Holiday Maker Program and published their interim report. This report makes a number of recommendations that the Australian Government will consider as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This interim report is available on the Australian Parliament House's website at: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Migration/WorkingHolidayMaker/Interim_Report.
Thank you for bringing Petition EN1486 to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Wood
COVID-19: Migration
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 June 2020 enclosing Petition EN1495 concerning the request for an extension for Working Holiday Maker (WHM) visas during COVID-19. The Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Alan Tudge MP, has asked that I respond on his behalf.
From January 2020, the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, progressively announced travel restrictions to curb the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in Australia. From 20 March 2020, a travel ban has been in place prohibiting travel into Australia of all foreign nationals, unless exempted.
These travel restrictions have been successful in slowing the spread of COVID-19 in Australia, and were implemented on the advice of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, as two thirds of Australia's COVID-19 cases had been sourced from overseas during the pandemic.
Under the Migration Regulations 1994, a person who is granted a Working Holiday (subclass 417) or Work and Holiday (subclass 462) visa while outside Australia is permitted to make their first entry to Australia up to 12 months from the date of grant. There is no provision in the current legislation to extend this date once the visa has been granted. The eligible age range for WHM visa applicants is also set in legislation according to arrangements previously negotiated bilaterally with each partner country.
WHM visa holders who were unable to enter Australia before their visas expired can choose to apply for a new visa when travel restrictions are lifted if they are still able to meet the eligibility criteria.
The Joint Standing Committee on Migration has recently completed their Inquiry into the Working Holiday Maker Program and published their interim report. This report makes a number of recommendations that the Australian Government will consider as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This interim report is available on the Australian Parliament House's website at:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Migration/WorkingHolidayMaker/lnterim_Report.
Thank you for bringing Petition EN1495 to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Wood
COVID-19: Migration
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 15 June 2020 enclosing Petition EN1513 concerning the request for an extension for Working Holiday Maker (WHM) visas during COVID-19. The Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Alan Tudge MP, has asked that I respond on his behalf.
From January 2020, the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, progressively announced travel restrictions to curb the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in Australia. From 20 March 2020, a travel ban has been in place prohibiting travel into Australia of all foreign nationals, unless exempted.
These travel restrictions have been successful in slowing the spread of COVID-19 in Australia, and were implemented on the advice of the Australian Health Protection Principal Committee, as two thirds of Australia's COVID-19 cases had been sourced from overseas during the pandemic .
Under the Migration Regulations 1994, a person who is granted a Working Holiday (subclass 417) or Work and Holiday (subclass 462) visa while outside Australia is permitted to make their first entry to Australia up to 12 months from the date of grant There is no provision in the current legislation to extend this date once the visa has been granted. The eligible age range for WHM visa applicants is also set in legislation according to arrangements previously negotiated bilaterally with each partner country.
WHM visa holders who were unable to enter Australia before their visas expired can choose to apply for a new visa when travel restrictions are lifted if they are still able to meet the eligibility criteria.
The Joint Standing Committee on Migration has recently completed their Inquiry into the Working Holiday Maker Program and published their interim report. This report makes a number of recommendations that the Australian Government will consider as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This interim report is available on the Australian Parliament House's website at:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Migration/WorkingHolidayMaker/lnterim_Report.
Thank you for bringing Petition EN1513 to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Wood
Telecommunications
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email, dated 24 August 2020, on behalf of the Petitions Committee concerning Petition EN1541 which requests investigation of the health effects of 5th generation (5G) mobile technology.
The Australian Government's policy is that all people in Australia should be able to access modem telecommunications services regardless of where they live or do business. Often, this means new telecommunications facilities need to be installed to provide those services.
The Government acknowledges that there is community interest in being satisfied that rigorous safety standards are in place to guard against the risk of over exposure to EME from mobile phone base stations. The Government strictly regulates EME emissions, to protect the health and safety of the public while allowing the community to benefit from modem telecommunications.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) provides expert advice on radiation protection and nuclear safety matters to the Government. In order to provide the best advice on the protection of the Australian public from the effects of radiation, ARPANSA undertakes its own research and reviews the relevant scientific research. This includes research and reviews of exposure to EME emissions from mobile telecommunications sources. ARPANSA also publishes the Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3 kHz to 300 GHz('ARPANSA Standard') which sets limits for EME exposure.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) adopts those limits as part of its regulatory requirements for the telecommunications sector.
The effects of EME exposure have been the subject of extensive and rigorous scientific study around the world for many decades. ARPANSA maintains continual oversight of emerging research into the potential health effects of EME emissions. It also consults with the world's peak health bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), so that Australia can contribute to and benefit from the best international research and guidance on this matter. Based on the best available research, ARPANSA and other leading health authorities advise that there are no known health effects from EME at the levels below the ARPANSA standard.
ICNIRP has recently released a review of its international guidelines, based on significant consultation and scientific review. ARPANSA advises that the level of protection provided by Australia's current standard is comparable to that provided by the new ICNIRP guidelines, however ARPANSA has revised Australia's standard to ensure the scientific evidence, measurements and modelling in the new ICNIRP guidelines are addressed in the Australian Standard. I understand that the ICNIRP guidelines are used by a majority of countries as a basis for their respective regulatory requirements.
On 13 September 2019, I asked the Committee to inquire into and report on the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in Australia. The Committee has released its report and the Government tabled its response in mid November. I understand that the Committee received many submissions and considered evidence from a range of parties, and ultimately has been assured that 5G is safe.
In December last year, I also announced a $9 million package over four years to provide for more funding for research into EME from telecommunications facilities and for more communications activities about the safety and regulation of EME. While decades of research indicates there are no known harmful effects from low levels of EME used for telecommunications, the Government recognises the need to continue research, particularly for emerging technologies. With this funding, ARPANSA will deliver the research program previously funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Outcomes of this research will be included in clearer, more accessible information for the public about EME from telecommunications facilities.
I hope the information in this letter is of some help.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, Mr Fletcher
Telecommunications
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email, dated 24 August 2020. on behalf of the Petitions Committee concerning Petition EN1542 which requests investigation of the health effects of 5th generation (5G) mobile technology.
The Australian Government's policy is that all people in Australia should be able to access modem telecommunications services regardless of where they live or do business. Often, this means new telecommunications facilities need to be installed to provide those services.
The Government acknowledges that there is community interest in being satisfied that rigorous safety standards are in place to guard against the risk of over exposure to EME from mobile phone base stations. The Government strictly regulates EME emissions, to protect the health and safety of the public while allowing the community to benefit from modern telecommunications.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) provides expert advice on radiation protection and nuclear safety matters to the Government. In order to provide the best advice on the protection of the Australian public from the effects of radiation, ARPANSA undertakes its own research and reviews the relevant scientific research. This includes research and reviews of exposure to EME emissions from mobile telecommunications sources. ARPANSA also publishes the Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3 kHz to 300 GHz ('ARPANSA Standard') which sets limits for EME exposure.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) adopts those limits as part of its regulatory requirements for the telecommunications sector.
The effects of EME exposure have been the subject of extensive and rigorous scientific study around the world for many decades. ARPANSA maintains continual oversight of emerging research into the potential health effects of EME emissions. It also consults with the world's peak health bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), so that Australia can contribute to and benefit from the best international research and guidance on this matter.
Based on the best available research, ARPANSA and other leading health authorities advise that there are no known health effects from EME at the levels below the ARPANSA standard.
ICNIRP has recently released a review of its international guidelines, based on significant consultation and scientific review. ARPANSA advises that the level of protection provided by Australia's current standard is comparable to that provided by the new ICNIRP guidelines, however ARPANSA has revised Australia's standard to ensure the scientific evidence, measurements and modelling in the new ICNIRP guidelines are addressed in the Australian Standard. I understand that the ICNIRP guidelines are used by a majority of countries as a basis for their respective regulatory requirements.
On 13 September 2019, I asked the Committee to inquire into and report on the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in Australia. The Committee has released its report and the Government tabled its response in mid November. I understand that the Committee received many submissions and considered evidence from a range of parties, and ultimately has been assured that 5G is safe.
In December last year, I also announced a $9 million package over four years to provide for more funding for research into EME from telecommunications facilities and for more communications activities about the safety and regulation of EME. While decades of research indicates there are no known harmful effects from low levels of EME used for telecommunications , the Government recognises the need to continue research, particularly for emerging technologies. With this funding, ARPANSA will deliver the research program previously funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Outcomes of this research will be included in clearer. more accessible information for the public about EME from telecommunications facilities.
I hope the information in this letter is of some help.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, Mr Fletcher
Australia Post
Dear Chair
Thank you for your letter dated 24 August 2020 concerning petition EN1543 regarding Australia Post.
The Morrison Government is committed to supporting Australia Post to provide important postal services to all Australians.
With many Australians staying and working at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Australia Post has experienced a significant surge in demand for parcel deliveries, while at the same time more and more traditional communications are shifting online away from letters.
In addition to peak level demand straining operations, Australia Post has been significantly impacted with reduced aviation capacity, movement and social distancing restrictions during the pandemic. In response to these challenges, Australia Post sought flexibility to adapt its workforce to meet the needs of Australians for enhanced parcel services during this time.
The Government is not involved in the day-to-day operations of Australia Post. Operational decisions about meeting and supporting its continuing service obligations are a matter for the Board and management of Australia Post.
In response to a request from Australia Post to help it meet customer needs by redeploying employees to its growing parcel delivery operation, the Government agreed to adjust elements of the Australian Postal Corporation (Performance Standards) Regulations 2019, which apply to its letters service.
The temporary changes to letter delivery standards means that Australia Post' s network will be more efficient overall, and better reflect current demand . The changes made by the Government allow Australia Post to:
suspend the priority letters service;
extend Australia Post's required delivery time for regular intrastate letters to a maximum five business days after the day of posting, an increase of one to two days;
change the minimum letter delivery frequency, in metropolitan areas only, from every business day to every second business day; and
allow Australia Post to temporarily close individual outlets should it be necessary due to workforce impacts of COVID-19.
Importantly, the delivery frequency of regular mail in regional, rural and remote Australia has not changed, and those customers with a PO Box will continue to receive their letters daily.
The changes are in effect from 16 May 2020 until 30 June 2021. The Government is currently reviewing the effect of these temporary arrangements and will decide if they will stay in place for the full period.
Under the changes, Australia Post has been able to retrain more than 2,500 posties who were previously dedicated to handling and delivering letters, and redeploy them into roles supporting parcel delivery.
Australia Post has also established at least 18 new or recommissioned parcel processing facilities, chartered additional freighter flights, and is operating some of its processing facilities 24/7. Ahead of what is expected to be its biggest Christmas ever, Australia Post is recruiting over 5,000 casual staff to help deliver parcels.
To support Australia's international airfreight supply chains, on 1 April 2020, the Government announced the $110 million International Freight Assistance Mechanism (IFAM) emergency measure. The Government has committed a further $559 million to extend the IFAM until mid-2021.
The Government has established a network of freight forwarders and air freight service providers to ensure continuation of airfreight to and from Australia, which has resulted in increased capacity for parcels and mail. It will also support the re-building of domestic connections for producers and growers in regional and rural areas that rely on air freight to get their products to customers.
In regard to its parcel service, Australia Post does not have a legislated monopoly on parcel delivery. Australia Post operates in a highly competitive market, giving consumers the opportunity to choose an alternative parcel delivery operator should they wish.
Customers are encouraged to contact Australia Post directly by calling 13 POST (13 76 78) to raise specific issues or concerns about its service delivery in the first instance. If they are unsatisfied with Australia Post's actions, they are able to raise their concerns with the Postal Industry Ombudsman by calling 1300 362 072 or using the online form at www.ombudsman.gov.au/How-we-can-help/postal-industryombudsman.
Australia Post is closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation and has undertaken to take action in line with the advice of government and health authorities in the interests everyone's safety. If you would like to stay informed of Australia Post's operational and service updates, you can visit www.auspost.com.au.
Thank you for bringing these concerns to my attention. I hope the information in this letter is of some help.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, Mr Fletcher
Visas
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 24 August 2020 enclosing Petition EN1583 concerning seeking faster processing of Partner visa applications. The Acting Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon Alan Tudge MP, has asked that I respond on his behalf.
It has been the long-standing practice of successive governments to manage the orderly delivery of Migration Program outcomes against planning levels. Planning levels are set by the Australian Government in accordance with lawful administrative processes and the Department of Home Affairs manages the delivery of the Migration Program, including the Partner visa program, in line with these planning levels.
On 6 October 2020, the Government announced the Migration Program planning levels for 2020-21 as part of the Budget. As a temporary measure for 2020-21, the Migration Program will depart from a two-thirds/one-third split between the Skill and Family streams to increase the number of places available to Family visa categories, with 72,300 places allocated to Partner visas.
The increase in planning levels for Partner visas in 2020-21 will support the reunification of Australians with immediate family members during the COVID-19 pandemic, and will provide greater certainty for those wanting to settle in Australia with their partners and plan for their futures.
Consistent with other visa categories for 2020-21, priority will be given to Partner visa applicants already in Australia, noting that there is no clear timeline on when large-scale international travel might commence.
Beginning in 2020-21, applications within the Partner program will also be prioritised where the relevant sponsor resides in a designated regional area . This will support regional Australia, and assist to reduce the impact of high levels of migration in major capital cities. Prioritising those in regional areas will also assist in meeting regional labour shortages, contribute to local communities and contribute to Australia's economic recovery.
The Department strives to assess applications as efficiently and effectively as possible. Demand for Partner visas has historically outstripped the supply of available places, leading to average visa processing timeframes that are longer than applicants and sponsors would wish. Additional factors that impact the processing of applications include the quality and completeness of those applications, applicants' responsiveness to requests for information, and the complexity involved in assessing genuineness, character, health and security requirements. The increase in Partner visa places for 2020-21 is expected to ease the backlog and processing timeframes within the Partner visa program.
Further information on the Migration Program for 2020-21 can be found on the Department's website at:
https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/migrationprogram-planning-levels.
Thank you for bringing Petition EN1583 to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Wood
Telecommunications
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email, dated 24 August 2020, on behalf of the Petitions Committee concerning Petition EN1594 which requests a moratorium on the roll-out of 5th generation (5G) mobile technology.
The Australian Government's policy is that all people in Australia should be able to access modem telecommunications services regardless of where they live or do business. Often, this means new telecommunications facilities need to be installed to provide those services.
The Government acknowledges that there is community interest in being satisfied that rigorous safety standards are in place to guard against the risk of over exposure to EME from mobile phone base stations. The Government strictly regulates EME emissions, to protect the health and safety of the public while allowing the community to benefit from modem telecommunications.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) provides expert advice on radiation protection and nuclear safety matters to the Government. In order to provide the best advice on the protection of the Australian public from the effects of radiation, ARPANSA undertakes its own research and reviews the relevant scientific research. This includes research and reviews of exposure to EME emissions from mobile telecommunications sources. ARPANSA also publishes the Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields - 3 kHz to 300 GHz ('ARPANSA Standard') which sets limits for EME exposure.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) adopts those limits as part of its regulatory requirements for the telecommunications sector.
The effects of EME exposure have been the subject of extensive and rigorous scientific study around the world for many decades. ARPANSA maintains continual oversight of emerging research into the potential health effects of EME emissions. It also consults with the world's peak health bodies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), so that Australia can contribute to and benefit from the best international research and guidance on this matter. Based on the best available research, ARPANSA and other leading health authorities advise that there are no known health effects from EME at the levels below the ARPANSA standard.
ICNIRP has recently released a review of its international guidelines, based on significant consultation and scientific review. ARPANSA advises that the level of protection provided by Australia's current standard is comparable to that provided by the new ICNIRP guidelines, however ARPANSA has revised Australia's standard to ensure the scientific evidence, measurements and modelling in the new ICNIRP guidelines are addressed in the Australian Standard. I understand that the ICNIRP guidelines are used by a majority of countries as a basis for their respective regulatory requirements.
On 13 September 2019, I asked the Committee to inquire into and report on the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in Australia. The Committee has released its report and the Government tabled its response in mid November. I understand that the Committee received many submissions and considered evidence from a range of parties, and ultimately has been assured that 5G is safe.
In December last year, I also announced a $9 million package over four years to provide for more funding for research into EME from telecommunications facilities and for more communications activities about the safety and regulation of EME. While decades of research indicates there are no known harmful effects from low levels of EME used for telecommunications, the Government recognises the need to continue research, particularly for emerging technologies. With this funding, ARPANSA will deliver the research program previously funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Outcomes of this research will be included in clearer, more accessible information for the public about EME from telecommunications facilities.
I hope the information in this letter is of some help.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts, Mr Fletcher
Indigenous Heritage Protection
Dear Chair
Thank you for your email of 19 October 2020 concerning a petition regarding the destruction of the Banjima people's cultural sites (petition number EN1640).
Protection of Indigenous cultural heritage is generally afforded though state government laws. I also have some powers to protect Indigenous cultural heritage under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (ATSIHP Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
My powers under the ATSIHP Act may be exercised in response to an application by an Indigenous person, for protection of a significant Aboriginal area or object. I have not received an application from the Banjima people under the ATSIHP Act. My powers under the EPBC Act relevantly relate to the assessment and approval of proposals that may have a significant impact on World or National Heritage listed places, which can include places with Indigenous heritage values.
On 19 June 2017, the Australian Government approved a strategic assessment program under the EPBC Act with BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd that protects the unique environment of the Pilbara and approves activities associated with iron ore mines and associated infrastructure in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. The 'controlling provisions' for which the approval has effect are nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities. As there are no World Heritage properties or National Heritage Places within the strategic assessment area, heritage matters are not considered within the scope of the approval.
In response to the Interim Report of the Independent Review of the EPBC Act, I have also committed to commencing a national engagement process for modernising the protection of Indigenous cultural heritage, commencing with a round table meeting of state Indigenous cultural heritage and environment ministers. This meeting, jointly chaired by the Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP, Minister for Indigenous Australians and me, was held on 21 September 2020. I have attached the communique from that meeting.
A key consideration at the round table was Dhawura Ngilan: A Vision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage in Australia and Best Practice Standards for Indigenous Cultural Heritage Management and Legislation. This Vision, which I have also enclosed, has been developed over the past 12 months, by the Chairs of Australia's national, state and territory Indigenous heritage bodies, with support from peak organisations representing every major land council and native title representative bodies.
Ministers agreed to reconvene at a later date to review progress towards the modernisation of Indigenous heritage protection laws and indicated that Indigenous representatives would be invited to join them at the table.
The Australian Parliament is undertaking an Inquiry into the destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters. Among other matters, the inquiry will look at how Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage laws might be improved to guarantee the protection of culturally and historically significant sites. I look forward to considering the outcomes of that Inquiry.
I have recently received the final report of the EPBC Act Review. I look forward to considering and responding to its recommendations.
Thank you for raising this matter with me.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for the Environment, Ms Ley
National Anthem
Dear Mr O' Dowd
Thank you for your email dated 19 October 2020 to the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, regarding petition EN1642 which requests that the House make ' I am Australian' , written by Bruce Woodley, the Australian National Anthem. The Prime Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf as the Minister responsible for national symbols policy.
The Australian National Anthem is widely accepted by Australians. The words and tune of the Australian National Anthem were proclaimed by the Governor-General of Australia on 19 April 1984, after extensive surveys of national opinion, starting in the 1970s. The Government has no plans to change this important national symbol.
Thank you for bringing this petition to the Government's attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Morton
Australian Parliament E-Petition Platform
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 19 October 2020 referring to me for response, petition EN1656 relating to the e-petitions platform for the House of Representatives. The petition asks the House to 'create a more open and accessible e-petitions platform that is easier shared and accessed'.
I think it is relevant to reflect on petitioning the House as a practice of long standing, and the way in which its petitions process has been reformed in recent years. Until 2016, petitions could be lodged only in physical form with handwritten signatures. In September 2016, following recommendations of the Committee on Petitions, the standing orders were changed to permit e-petitions in addition to the traditional hard copy form.
The e-petitions system was introduced soon after these rule changes were adopted, with the system enabling citizens to sign and submit petitions online and showing the progress of those petitions as they are presented, referred to Ministers and responded to. Since 2016, more than 1,210 e-petitions have been approved for presentation to the House.
Following its subsequent review of the e-petitions system, in May 2018 the Committee on Petitions presented its report, Making voices heard. I agreed to the recommendations to update the web page to improve the user experience and accessibility, and enhancements were made to the system by August 2019, introducing a unique web page and URL for each approved petition. On each web page, there is the facility to share details of the petition through various social media platforms.
The departments of the House of Representatives and of Parliamentary Services are working together to improve further the experience for users of the e-petitions system. Accessible web page design is a key focus of this project, responding to the committee's recommendations to increase understanding of the petitions process through the use of explanatory symbols, imagery and plain English.
The petitioners referred to non parliamentary petitions platforms. As you are aware, the House can only accept e-petitions that have been submitted via its dedicated parliamentary e-petitions website, which has been designed to support users to create petitions that meet the formal requirements for presentation to the House. The further improvements under development are aimed at making the parliamentary system more accessible and easier to use. I look forward to their implementation and to the continued development of the petitions process of the House, as guided by the Committee on Petitions.
Thank you for bringing this petition to my attention and I trust this information will be of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Smith
E-Cigarettes
Dear Chair
I refer to your correspondence concerning Petition EN1667 about a reconsideration of the proposed restriction on the importation nicotine for use in e-cigarettes. I regret the delay in responding.
You may be aware that the proposed restriction on the importation of personal nicotine vaporisers and, separately, nicotine for use in e-cigarettes has been deferred. This is in the context of the Therapeutics Goods Administration Delegate's consideration of the final decision on whether nicotine for all human use (except in nicotine replacement therapy and in tobacco packed and prepared for smoking) should be included in the Poisons Standard as a prescription-only medicine.
The Delegate's primary reasons for the interim decision are to arrest the rapid uptake in use of e-cigarettes by young people, while facilitating their simple and legal access for smoking cessation. To proceed now with the amendment to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 would unnecessarily pre-empt any further deliberations the Delegate is required to take in reaching a final decision under the therapeutic goods regulatory framework.
The Australian Government will also monitor the impacts of the changes to the Poisons Standard if the Delegate's final decision confirms the interim decision.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
National Anthem
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email dated 19 October 2020 to the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, regarding petition EN1671 which requests that the House change the Australian National Anthem to 'I am Australian' by The Seekers. The Prime Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf as the Minister responsible for national symbols policy.
The Australian National Anthem is widely accepted by Australians. The words and tune of the Australian National Anthem were proclaimed by the Governor-General of Australia on 19 April 1984, after extensive surveys of national opinion, starting in the 1970s. The Government has no plans to change this important national symbol.
The Government is committed to holding a referendum to recognise Indigenous Australians in the Constitution, once there is consensus on the way forward and at a time that it has the best chance of success. In addition, the Government is undertaking a co-design process to define local, regional and national elements of an Indigenous voice to Parliament. The voice would allow the ideas and views of Indigenous Australians to be heard in the development of policy and in decision-making that affects them.
Thank you for bringing this petition to the Government's attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Morton
Health Care
Dear Chair
I refer to your correspondence concerning petition number EN1673. I regret the delay in responding.
The Australian Government appreciates the challenges faced by individuals affected by chronic pain and is committed to addressing the impact of chronic pain on the community.
To support this commitment, the Government is working closely with Painaustralia and state and territory governments on the endorsement of the National Strategic Action Plan for Pain Management (Action Plan). A key goal of the Action Plan is to ensure health practitioners are well-informed on best practice evidence-based assessment and care, and are well supported to deliver this care.
The Government is providing $2.5 million in funding to support early implementation of the Action Plan, including consumer awareness and education activities and training for health professionals.
A further $4.1 million is being provided to support additional specialist pain management services through the Rural Health Outreach Fund. This funding aims to support delivery of outreach pain management specialist services in regional, rural and remote areas of Australia and to undertake upskilling of primary care providers in these areas to improve prescribing habits and awareness of appropriate pain management treatment.
The Government makes a substantial contribution to pain research endeavours through grants provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Since 2000, approximately $265 million has been expended on clinical research projects into pain and pain management issues.
On 1 June 2020, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) listings for opioid medications underwent a number of changes as recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). These were recommended in response to the Therapeutic Goods Administration's regulatory reforms implemented to minimise the harms caused by opioid prescription medicines to Australians each year.
The PBAC recognised that access to opioid pain relief is an essential component of many pain management plans. While PBS changes include pack size reductions for short term use, adjustments to the 'indications' and changes to the authority process that doctors must follow to prescribe opioids to be subsidised under the PBS, these changes will ensure the safe and effective prescribing and use of opioids while maintaining access for patients for whom they are clinically appropriate.
Following the implementation of these changes, the PBAC considered feedback from Palliative Care Australia expressing concerns barriers to pain management for palliative care patients. The PBAC subsequently recommended additional changes to the opioid listings for palliative care patients and restructured the existing opioid restrictions to reduce the administrative burden on prescribers. These changes were implemented on 1 October 2020.
From 1 October 2020, patients who are receiving palliative care whose clinical condition is such that they are unable to seek a secondary annual review will be exempted from this requirement. For those palliative patients who are well enough to meet this requirement, a palliative care nurse practitioner will be also able to conduct annual reviews.
PBS-subsidised opioids can continue to be prescribed for the treatment of patients with chronic pain. Prescribers are able to request authority approval from Services Australia for increased quantities and/or repeats of PBS-subsidised opioids. These increases may extend treatment up to three months' supply per prescription.
However, patients requiring authority for increased quantities and repeats must have an annual review of their condition conducted by a second medical practitioner to confirm ongoing need for opioid medication when they have been receiving treatment with opioids for 12 months or longer. This secondary consult is an annual requirement only where increased quantities and/or repeats of opioid medication are required. The annual review does not need to be undertaken by a pain specialist; rather any Australian registered medical practitioner will suffice. In recognition of the difficulties for patients to see their doctors due to COVID-19, the secondary review may also be undertaken by phone or telehealth consultation where appropriate.
Prescribers can request real-time authority approval through the Online PBS Authorities system for quantities and/or repeats that provide up to three months treatment. This removes the need for prescribers to call or submit a written application to Services Australia. Alternatively, prescribers can request up to one months' treatment via the telephone or up to three months' treatment via Health Professional Online Services form upload function, or via mail.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
Welfare
Dear Mr O ' Dowd
PETITION MINISTERIAL REFERRAL (EN1683)
PETITION FOR AN URGENT ROYAL COMMISSION INTO ROBODEBT
Thank you for your email of 19 October 2020 regarding a petition (EN1683) calling for a Royal Commission into "Robodebt Centrelink". I understand this to be a reference to the Income Compliance Program.
Royal Commissions are a form of non-judicial and non-administrative governmental investigation and are only established in exceptional circumstances. Commonwealth Royal Commissions are established through the issuing of Letters Patent by the Governor-General under the Royal Commissions Act 1902 (Cth). It is the Government of the day that determines the need to request a Royal Commission.
On 29 May 2020, the Minister for Government Services issued a media release announcing that, from July 2020, Services Australia would refund 470,000 debts raised wholly or partially using income averaging of ATO data. The total value of refunds including fees and charges is estimated at $721 million. Matters regarding the Income Compliance Program should be referred to Minister Robert.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Porter
Consumer Rights
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 19 October 2020 originally directed to the Treasurer, relating to Petition Ministerial Referral EN1686, which requests amendments to the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) to provide refunds where consumers cancel product orders. Your correspondence has been referred to me for a response.
I appreciate the concern raised in this petition and understand why consumers become frustrated when they are unable to obtain refunds for goods they cannot use.
With regard to the ACL, I note that the law does not require traders to provide refunds to consumers if consumers decide that they no longer need the goods they have purchased. Rather, the ACL' s consumer protections are designed to assist consumers who do not get what they pay for. For example, the ACL's consumer guarantees require remedies (such as refunds, repairs or replacement goods) when there is problem with the good itself (such as when it has a defect, is unsafe or is not durable) and when the good is not fit for its purpose or another purpose the consumer disclosed to the supplier before purchase. This reflects that consumers typically have less knowledge and experience than traders with the goods they purchase and so may not be aware of the defects likely to occur or be able to bargain for a contractual response to those risks.
However, it is important that the ACL balances the interests of consumers and suppliers to ensure that transactions are fair and efficient such that each party can confidently participate in the market. In this context, the ACL makes suppliers/manufacturers accountable when the commitments they make to consumers are not met and cause detriment. Conversely, consumers retain responsibility for their purchasing decisions. This recognises that suppliers can incur costs in processing purchase orders and generally require some certainty from transactions.
I note that some traders (e.g. some department stores) have store policies that provide consumers with refunds (or store credit) for change of mind purchases. This is generally designed to give consumers greater confidence to purchase a good when they are not fully certain it meets their needs and/or to create goodwill. Given the potential costs of providing such a service, it is appropriate that businesses continue to make these decisions on a case-by-case according to their business models. In this context, some businesses will provide this additional service while absorbing costs or increasing prices, while others will not offer the service and instead aim to offer consumers a lower price. Consumers are then able to compare prices, terms and conditions and choose the offer that best suit their needs.
Where change of mind refunds are promoted by a business or are a specific condition of the sales contract, businesses must honour that commitment, otherwise they may breach the general ACL prohibition against misleading and deceptive conduct.
Finally, in the specific instance described in the petition, I note that the consumer has chosen not to take delivery of the good they purchased and has therefore suffered a full loss of the purchase price. In such circumstances, it is open for consumers to accept the good and seek to recoup some of the costs through secondary markets for goods. Given recent advances in electronic commerce and a range of online platforms, it has become more convenient and easier for consumers to list unwanted goods for sale in a way that connects with a wide range of potential buyers and limits transactions costs. The consumer may wish to approach the business in question and ask them to deliver the good, with this objective in mind.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer, Mr Sukkar
Taxation
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 19 October 2020 originally directed to the Treasurer, concerning Ministerial Referral (ENl699) regarding the Boosting Cash Flow for Employers measure. Your correspondence has been referred to me for response.
The Australian Government is providing tax-free cash flow boosts of between $20,000 and $100,000 to eligible small and medium businesses and not-for-profit organisations (NFPs) so they can keep operating, pay their rent, electricity and other bills, and retain staff. Eligible employers receive these boosts as credits upon lodging their activity statements for the March to September 2020 periods.
To be eligible for support from this measure, entities are required to have (on or before 12 March 2020) an Australian Business Number and evidence of business income. The evidence can be either in a 2018-19 tax return, or in an activity statement for any tax period that started after 1 July 2018 and ended before 12 March 2020. We know that most businesses do the right thing, however this requirement is an important integrity feature to prevent schemes designed to artificially access support from this measure.
The measure was designed to use the Australian Taxation Office's existing systems so that support could be delivered in a timely fashion. Accordingly, the measure requires the evidence to have been supplied to the Commissioner of Taxation prior to 12 March 2020.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer, Mr Sukkar
National Redress Scheme
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Petition (ENl702) - Request to withdrawal support for charities that have refused to sign the National Redress Scheme
Thank you for your email of 19 October 2020 concerning Petition (EN1702) - Request to withdrawal support for charities that have refused to sign the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (the scheme).
The Australian Government agrees it is not acceptable that certain institutions have not yet joined the Scheme, and remains committed to pursuing available measures to encourage institutions who have been named in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, to join the Scheme.
In recent statements the Prime Minister has remarked that it is reprehensible where institutions refuse to join the Scheme. The Government is currently exploring further sanctions the Commonwealth will place on institutions who continue to refuse to join the Scheme, including withdrawal of their charitable status.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters, Mr Seselja
Environment
Dear Chair
Thank you for your email of 19 October 2020 concerning Petition E1714: Cease permitting disturbances to flying-fox camps, presented in the House on 19 October 2020.
l understand that the petitioners have expressed concern about disturbance of Australian flying-foxes and their relocation, specifically in relation to the nationally recognised 'camp' at 15l Abbott Street Cairns (the Cairns Library) .
The Australian Government is concerned to protect and recover our threatened flying-fox species. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment has worked in collaboration with numerous experts and stakeholders to prepare the Referral guideline for management actions in grey-headed and spectacled flying-fox camps, which was formally adopted in September 2015. This advises landowners and land managers of obligations under national environmental law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act) to protect flying-foxes and their camps.
As Australia's built environment has developed, the number and size of places suitable for flying-fox camps has diminished. Because flying-foxes have strong fidelity to their camps, even when the loss of trees or neighbouring developments make them unsuitable for safely raising young, flying-foxes continue to return to the same place to roost and breed.
In 2019, the Cairns Regional Council, in accordance with the Referral guidelines and the EPBC Act, submitted a proposal to relocate the nationally important spectacled flying-fox camp at the Cairns Library to the Cairns Central Swamp because, in the previous several years, large numbers of spectacled flying-foxes, particularly pups, died when the Cairns Library camp experienced hot weather conditions. Fortunately, the Cairns city region has ample suitable roosting habitat for flying-foxes, such as the Cairns Central Swamp, not far from the Cairns Library.
On 15 May 2020, my Delegate in the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (the Department) approved the Cairns Regional Council's proposal to relocate the Cairns Library spectacled flying-fox camp to the Cairns Central Swamp, following rigorous assessment and subject to twenty-four strict conditions to ensure that the species is protected.
The approval allowed the Council to engage experienced contractors to use low impact methods (lights and various sounds) to relocate spectacled flying-fox roosting at the Cairns Library site. As a result, most roost at the Swamp where they are producing pups.
The Council has informed the Department that the relocation has been successfully concluded and caused no deaths of grey-headed or spectacled flying- fox. The pupping season just getting underway is expected to be much more successful than the previous several seasons. The Department has imposed strong monitoring and reporting obligations on the Council so that the outcomes can be evaluated. It is likely that deterrent efforts will have to continue for several years. The Council is not conducting these efforts under its EPBC approval as deterrent activities (as opposed to relocation activities) do not require approval under the Act.
It is the opinion of the experts consulted by the Department and the Council that relocating the spectacled flying-foxes to roost at the Cairns Central Swamp is the best option to help these species recover.
Thank you for bringing the concerns of the petitioners to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for the Environment, Ms Ley
Charitable Organisations
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Charitable status of religious organisations
Thank you for your email of 19 October 2020 concerning petition EN1718 on the charitable status of religious organisations.
The Australian Government provides charity status to a variety of entities, with charitable purposes ranging from advancing education to preventing or relieving the suffering of animals as outlined in the Charities Act 2013 (Cth). Advancement of religion has been accepted as a charitable purpose throughout the history of charity law in Australia . Comparable international jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States and New Zealand also consider the advancement of religion a charitable purpose and provide tax concessions to religious bodies.
Charities are regulated by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC), which has a range of powers to gather information and monitor the activities of charities. Registration as a charity requires ongoing compliance with a range of governance standards, reporting requirements and other obligations, which include compliance with Australian laws. Some religious entities can be designated as a 'basic religious charity', which are not required to adhere to the governance standards and have fewer reporting obligations under the ACNC Act.
The ACNC is responsible for ensuring that charities are complying with governance standards. The ACNC takes all concerns raised about the misconduct of charities seriously , including failure to comply with Australian laws about racism and discrimination , and investigates where appropriate.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister for Finance, Charities and Electoral Matters, Mr Seselja
Medicare
Dear Chair
I refer to your correspondence of 19 October 2020 concerning petition EN1728 in relation to access to Medicare by foreign trained doctors.
The Australian Government recognises the unique challenges facing the health system in rural and remote regions, and is focused on improving the capacity, quality, distribution and services to meet the needs of families and communities in these areas. Section 19AB of the Health Insurance Act 1973 and its Guidelines, seek to support doctors to work in Distribution Priority Areas (DPA) and District of Workforce Shortage (DWS) locations to better support provision of services to areas in most need.
Section 19AB restricts international medical graduates from accessing the Medicare benefit arrangements from the date of their first Australian medical registration for a period of 10 years. Under the Guidelines, exemptions may be considered when a doctor seeks to practise in an area in which the general population's need for medical services is not met. This is referred to as a DPA for GPs or a DWS for specialists. Australian doctors who graduate from an international medical school are also subject to these restrictions.
Section 19AB does not prevent a doctor from practising in Australia, nor does it force a doctor to practice at a particular location. Overseas Trained Doctors (OTD) and Foreign Graduates of an Accredited Medical School (FGAMS) are free to provide professional medical services that are not subsidised by the Medicare scheme (in a private capacity), anywhere their visa allows. Section 19AB simply sets out the eligibility requirements where a doctor wishes to access a Government-paid Medicare benefit.
The operation of section 19AB is consistent with the Government's skilled migration policies. The aim of skilled migration is to attract migrants who make a significant contribution to the Australian community, to fill positions where there may be a shortfall of Australian workers available. For doctors, these locations are those given DPA or DWS status. The section 19AB restrictions seek to make healthcare access fair for all Australians, including those for whom doctors are in much shorter supply than in other areas.
Government legislation and instruments are required to document a Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights. The Health Insurance (Section 19AB Exemptions Guidelines) Determination 2019 (Guidelines) was assessed as being compatible with human rights because the provisions contained within the Guidelines advance the protection of human rights by enabling limited resources (Medicare benefits) to be spent more effectively and for the benefit of all Australians.
To the extent that the Guidelines may limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable, necessary and proportionate. Specifically addressed are:
Right to health services: the Guidelines promote the right to health for all Australians by including a number of provisions that have a direct effect on medical workforce distribution, specifically the private medical workforce.
Freedom of movement:
The right to freedom of movement includes the right to move freely within a country for persons who are lawfully within a country. The Government is not directly responsible for determining where any doctor (Australian or overseas trained) may practise medicine. Eligibility to practise medicine in Australia is determined through the medical registration process.
Nothing in the Guidelines forces OTDs and FGAMS to provide medical services in any particular area in Australia, or requires an OTD or FGAMS to service a particular group of patients or to provide a particular set of medical services within their medical specialty. The Guidelines also do not place any restriction on the ability of OTDs or FGAMS to either enter or leave Australia.
Equality and non-discrimination: the Guidelines and the related section 19AB restrictions limit the capacity of OTDs and FGAMS to provide services for which Medicare rebates are payable. However, OTDs and FGAMS are not identified on the basis of their race, their descent, or their national or ethnic origin. The 10 year moratorium requirement is applied uniformly to all medical practitioners who belong to the OTDs and FGAMS cohorts. Australian citizens, permanent residents and temporary residents who fall into these cohorts are all subject to the same restrictions under the ten year moratorium requirement and receive the same treatment by each of the provisions of the Guidelines.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
Intelligence Agencies
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 19, October 2020 enclosing Petition EN1742 concerning the reforms contained in the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 (the Bill), the warrant powers of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO), and the freedom of information (FOi) scheme.
The Bill and the role of Australian intelligence community
Australia's security and intelligence agencies face a complex and evolving threat environment. The Australian Government's first priority is to ensure the safety and security of all Australians, and the Australian way of life. It is crucial that our intelligence agencies have the tools they need to keep Australians safe from those who seek to do us harm.
The Bill modernised and strengthened the legislative framework for the Australian Intelligence Community. The measures contained in the Bill were developed to enable agencies to respond to current and emerging threats to Australia's national security. This included reforming the warrant provisions in Division 2 of Part Ill of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, including in relation to computer access warrants, surveillance devices and warrants against an identified person of security concern.
I want to emphasis to you that neither ASIO nor any of Australia's other intelligence agencies can or do target ordinary Australian citizens going about their ordinary business, as it is not their function to do so. The powers of Australia's intelligence agencies, including ASIO, are subject to significant safeguards which ensure that these powers are used consistently with the right to protection against arbitrary and unlawful interferences with privacy and liberty. Safeguards include the high thresholds prescribed by the statutory criteria for the issuing of warrants and the exercise of powers under them, Ministerial-level issuing decisions, and the independent oversight of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS). The IGIS has oversight powers akin to a standing Royal Commission.
These robust oversight mechanisms not only ensure that Australia's intelligence agencies act legally and with propriety, but also provide avenues for individuals to make complaints about agencies' actions. IGIS investigates complaints made about intelligence agencies, has access to all records of these agencies and can examine the full set of circumstances of any complaint. With access to this information , complaints and other matters can often be quickly resolved.
It is imperative that Australia 's intelligence agencies maintain their critical intelligence capabilities to address an evolving and serious threat environment, while being subject to strict safeguards and accountability mechanisms. On this basis, the Government does and will continue to support those agencies' powers, including ASIO 's warrant powers. These powers enable ASIO and the Australian Intelligence Community to better anticipate threats, protect Australians and provide valuable advice to the Government , all while protecting the rights of Australians .
FOI and intelligence agencies
The Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) makes the Government more open and accountable, and is an integral part of Australia's democratic framework. However, owing to the high sensitivity of their activities and operations , Australia's intelligence agencies are generally excluded from the operation of the FOI Act. This exclusion is necessary to ensure the maintenance of intelligence liaison arrangements and to protect information about capabilities, and reflects the highly classified and sensitive information held by those agencies.
In this context, and given the extensive oversight and accountability mechanisms to which Australia's intelligence agencies are subject , it is not appropriate to extend the FOI scheme to these agencies.
Thank you for bringing Petition EN1742 to my attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton
Family Law
Dear Chair
Thank you for your correspondence of 19 October 2020 regarding House of Representatives Petition ENl743, which requests the introduction of superannuation splitting laws for Western Australian de facto couples.
The Australian Government recognises that superannuation has become an increasingly valuable asset for Australians, and can be the largest single asset in the property pool of a separating family. In Western Australia, the inability for separating de facto couples to split their superannuation has led to increasing inequity, particularly for couples with low-value property pools where superannuation may be the only asset. The Government is also conscious of the need to help those who have experienced family violence to access resources to help them rebuild their lives following separation.
For more than a decade, separating de facto couples in Western Australia have had to put up with a situation regarding the treatment of superannuation assets in property settlements which is different to the rest of the country.
On 27 November 2019, I introduced the Family Law Amendment (Western Australia De Facto Superannuation Splitting and Bankruptcy) Bill 2019 into Parliament to end this unequal treatment. The Bill will enable Western Australian de facto couples' to split their superannuation as part of a family law property settlement, either through a court order or by an agreement made by the couple. The Bill will also enable de facto couples in Western Australia to have bankruptcy matters heard concurrently with their family law proceedings, avoiding the need for separate proceedings in two different courts.
Following its introduction, the Bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. The Committee's report on the Bill, which recommended that the Bill be passed with minor amendments, was published on 13 March 2020 and is available at:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_ConstitutionalAffairs/FamilylawWA2019.
Unfortunately the legislative agenda this year has been significantly disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, I can inform you that the Bill was passed in the House of Representatives on 9 November 2020, and will now be considered by the Senate. I look forward to this important reform being enacted as soon as practicable, to end over a decade of inequality for Western Australia de facto couples.
Once the Bill has passed through the Parliament, the operative provisions will commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation. This will enable the Western Australian Parliament to enact its own legislation to support the operation of the Bill.
Thank you for raising this matter with me. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Porter
Education
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email of 19 October 2020 regarding Petition EN1763. In response to the issues raised in the Petition, I can provide the following advice.
The Australian Government is committed to maintaining the high quality and integrity of Australia's higher education system which is fundamental to our reputation as a provider of world-class international education and training services.
All higher education providers must be registered with the national independent regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA). The Higher Education Standards Framework 2015 (Threshold Standards) provides the basis for the regulation of the sector. The Threshold Standards outline the requirements and expectations of higher education providers regarding the delivery of higher education in or from Australia and ensure that the barrier to entry as a provider is set sufficiently high to underpin and protect the quality and reputation of the system as a whole.
TEQSA monitors the compliance of universities with the Threshold Standards. If TEQSA determines that an institution is not complying with the Threshold Standards, it can impose conditions on a provider's registration. TEQSA's regulatory role is set out within the TEQSA Act 2011, which requires it to protect student interests and the reputation of Australia's higher education sector through a proportionate, risk-reflective approach to quality assurance .
TEQSA accepts complaints from students and others about a university's compliance with the Threshold Standards and certain other legislation. More information about TEQSA's complaints process is available at www.teqsa.gov.au/complaints.
I consider that universities are already sufficiently regulated, both nationally and through state and territory laws, such as those noted above. I do not believe that an investigation into the Australian higher education system is required. I also believe that TEQSA has appropriate powers to regulate the higher education sector.
Thank you for bringing the concerns of the petitioner to my attention. I trust this information is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Education, Mr Tehan
JobKeeper Payment
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 19 October 2020 originally directed to the Treasurer, presenting Petition Ministerial Referral (EN1769) Request to extend JobKeeper for all Australian permanent residents. Your correspondence has been referred to me for response.
The petition requests the extension of employee eligibility for the JobKeeper Payment to all Australian Permanent Residents, irrespective of the time at which they became a Permanent Resident.
The JobKeeper Payment was designed to deliver support quickly and at scale, which is why it was important that the eligibility criteria were as straightforward as possible, drawing upon existing tax and revenue concepts and definitions. Reference dates for employee eligibility have been established to ensure that employers can enrol in the program and nominate employees with certainty. A system that would permit additional employees to become eligible throughout the period of the program would be complex and impose considerable compliance burdens on eligible businesses through multiple employee enrolment phases.
The petition refers to the initial 1 March 2020 JobKeeper employee reference date. On 7 August 2020, the Australian Government announced the change of the employee reference date from l March to 1 July 2020 (applying from 3 August 2020) to expand employee eligibility. Permanent employees and long-term casual employees in employment with eligible businesses as at 1 July 2020 (previously 1 March 2020) are eligible for the JobKeeper Payment, subject to meeting the other employee eligibility requirements, including permanent resident status.
Over 120,000 additional individuals were expected to become eligible for the JobKeeper Payment as a result of the change in the employee reference date to 1 July 2020, however it is not possible to determine the proportion of those newly eligible individuals who have become eligible as a result of becoming permanent residents between 1 March 2020 and I July 2020 or due to some other reason.
I trust this information will be of assistance to you.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Housing and Assistant Treasurer, Mr Sukkar
Australian Republic
Dear Mr O' Dowd
Thank you for your letter dated 19 October 2020 to the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, regarding petition number EN1792 which calls on the Commonwealth Parliament to call a referendum on Australia becoming a Republic and to implement a Declaration of Independence and a Bill of Rights. The Prime Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf.
The Prime Minister has expressed his support for current constitutional arrangements. As you may be aware, any proposal to amend the Australian Constitution needs widespread community support to succeed. I add that under the current constitutional arrangements, Australia is a sovereign, independent and federal nation.
The Government considers that existing mechanisms to protect and promote Australians' rights, including the Australian Constitution, the common law, parliamentary democracy at State and federal levels, an independent judiciary, and specific statutory protections, are appropriate. On this basis, the Government does not propose to introduce a charter or bill of rights at the federal level.
The Commonwealth Government respects the right of all Australians to continue to express their views on these matters.
Thank you for bringing this petition to the attention of the Prime Minister.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Morton
COVID 19: Vaccine
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 19 October 2020 concerning Petition ENl803 - Petition against mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.
The Australian Government supports immunisation in recognition that it is a safe and effective way to prevent the spread of many diseases in the community that can cause hospitalisation, serious ongoing health conditions, or sometimes even death.
The Government is committed to providing all Australians with access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines as soon as available. A COVID-19 vaccine is the best way to protect the Australian community.
There is overwhelming support for a strong stance on immunisation and the Government has formed the view that the benefits of vaccination to the community are sufficiently important to underpin certain policy decisions.
While the Government supports immunisation, it is not compulsory, and people maintain the right to choose whether to vaccinate themselves and their family.
Australians are encouraged to rely on reputable and authoritative sources of information to help them make informed choices and stay up to date. My Department regularly promotes evidenced-based information about vaccinations.
Any decisions concerning the availability of a potential COVID-19 vaccine and related policies will be based on the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, COVID-19 Vaccine and Treatments for Australia - Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group and other experts, and will be contingent on a vaccine candidate meeting all requirements with regard to testing and safety.
If COVID-19 vaccines are approved for use in Australia, the Therapeutic Goods Administration Product Information site will have all the information, including information regarding clinical trials, along with other clinical particulars such as any contraindications, special warning and precautions for use, as well as adverse events.
Vaccines, like any other medicines, can have side effects, however all vaccines used within Australia provide benefits which greatly outweigh their risks. A number of organisations including the Australian Academy of Science, an independent scientific body, have produced documents such as The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers which the petition authors may be interested in, available at: www.science.org.au.
The Government has invested in AusVaxSafety, the national, monitoring and surveillance system which actively monitors vaccine safety throughout Australia. Current results are available on their website at: www.ausvaxsafety.org.au. Parents/carers and immunisation providers can also report adverse events to the TGA via the Adverse Event Management System at: www.tga.gov.au.
However, a vaccine for COVID-19 does not currently exist. If and when a vaccine becomes available, decisions on how to best implement a vaccination program will be made taking into account all available public health, medical and epidemiological data available at that time.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
COVID 19: Vaccine
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 19 October 2020 concerning Petition EN1804 - Legislation preventing the Australian Government from enacting mandatory vaccines.
The Australian Government supports immunisation in recognition that it is a safe and effective way to prevent the spread·of many diseases in the community that can cause hospitalisation, serious ongoing health conditions, or sometimes even death.
The Government is committed to providing all Australians with access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines as soon as available. A COVID-19 vaccine is the best way to protect the Australian community.
There is overwhelming support for a strong stance on immunisation and the Government has formed the view that the benefits of vaccination to the community are sufficiently important to underpin certain policy decisions.
While the Government supports immunisation, it is not compulsory, and people maintain the right to choose whether to vaccinate themselves and their family.
Australians are encouraged to rely on reputable and authoritative sources of information to help them make informed choices and stay up to date. My Department regularly promotes evidenced-based information about vaccinations.
Any decisions concerning the availability of a potential COVID-19 vaccine and related policies will be based on the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, COVID-19 Vaccine and Treatments for Australia - Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group and other experts, and will be contingent on a vaccine candidate meeting all requirements with regard to testing and safety.
Vaccines, like any other medicines, can have side effects, however all vaccines used within Australia provide benefits which greatly outweigh their risks. A number of organisations including the Australian Academy of Science, an independent scientific body, have produced documents such as The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers which the petition authors may be interested in, available at: www.science.org.au.
The Government has invested in AusVaxSafety, the national, monitoring and surveillance system which actively monitors vaccine safety throughout Australia. Current results are available on their website at: www.ausvaxsafety.org.au. Parents/carers and immunisation providers can also report adverse events to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) via the Adverse Event Management System at: www.tga.gov.au.
However a vaccine for COVID-19 does not currently exist. If and when a vaccine becomes available, decisions on how to best implement a vaccination program will be made taking into account all available public health, medical and epidemiological data available at that time.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
COVID 19: Vaccine
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 19 October 2020 concerning Petition EN1807 - No Mandatory Vaccination for Covid-19.
The Australian Government supports immunisation in recognition that it is a safe and effective way to prevent the spread of many diseases in the community that can cause hospitalisation, serious ongoing health conditions, or sometimes even death.
The Government is committed to providing all Australians with access to safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines as soon as available. A COVID-19 vaccine is the best way to protect the Australian community.
There is overwhelming support for a strong stance on immunisation and the Government has formed the view that the benefits of vaccination to the community are sufficiently important to underpin certain policy decisions.
While the Government supports immunisation, it is not compulsory, and people maintain the right to choose whether to vaccinate themselves and their family.
Australians are encouraged to rely on reputable and authoritative sources of information to help them make informed choices and stay up to date. My Department regularly promotes evidenced-based information about vaccinations.
Any decisions concerning the availability of a potential COVID-19 vaccine and related policies will be based on the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, COVID-19 Vaccine and Treatments for Australia - Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group and other experts, and will be contingent on a vaccine candidate meeting all requirements with regard to testing and safety.
Vaccines, like any other medicines, can have side effects, however all vaccines used within Australia provide benefits which greatly outweigh their risks. A number of organisations including the Australian Academy of Science, an independent scientific body, have produced documents such as The Science of Immunisation: Questions and Answers which the petition authors may be interested in, available at: www.science.org.au.
The Government has invested in AusVaxSafety, the national, monitoring and surveillance system which actively monitors vaccine safety throughout Australia. Current results are available on their website at: www.ausvaxsafety.org.au. Parents, carers and immunisation providers can also report adverse events to the Therapeutic Goods Administration via the Adverse Event Management System at: www.tga.gov.au.
However, a vaccine for COVID-19 does not currently exist. If and when a vaccine becomes available, decisions on how to best implement a vaccination program will be made taking into account all available public health, medical and epidemiological data available at that time.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister from Health, Mr Hunt
Aboriginal Flag
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your email dated 19 October 2020 to the Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, regarding petition EN1814 which requests that the House amend the Flags Act 1953 or the Copyright Act 1968 to prevent individuals and corporations from claiming exclusive copyright in relation to the Australian Aboriginal Flag. The Prime Minister has asked me to respond on his behalf as the Minister responsible for national symbols policy.
The Australian Aboriginal Flag was first raised on National Aborigines Day in Victoria Square, Adelaide, on 12 July 1971. It was chosen as the official flag for the Aboriginal Embassy in Canberra in 1972.
In view of the flag's wide acceptance and importance in Australian society, the Government took steps in 1994 to give the flag legal recognition. On 14 July 1995, the Australian Aboriginal Flag was proclaimed a flag of Australia under section 5 of the Flags Act 1953.
In 1997, Mr Harold Thomas was confirmed by the Federal Court to be the sole copyright owner of the Australian Aboriginal Flag. Under the Copyright Act 1968, Mr Thomas has the exclusive right to communicate, reproduce and publish the Australian Aboriginal Flag. He is also able to enter into licence agreements as he chooses.
The Minister for Indigenous Australians, the Hon Ken Wyatt AM MP, and the National Indigenous Australians Agency are currently engaged in discussions with the relevant parties with the aim of removing the divisiveness of the current arrangements relating to the Australian Aboriginal Flag.
Thank you for bringing this petition to the Government's attention.
Yours sincerely
from the Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Morton
COVID-19
Dear Mr O'Dowd
Thank you for your correspondence of 19 October 2020 concerning petition number EN1824 about Australian pets stranded overseas. I appreciate the time you have taken to bring this matter to my attention.
The change in global air travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in some pets being unable to fly directly into Melbourne International Airport where Australia's state-of-the-art Post-Entry Quarantine (PEQ) facility is located at Mickleham. On 18 September 2020, I announced a new temporary arrangement with Qantas airlines to allow cats and dogs to be transhipped via Sydney to the PEQ in Melbourne. This transhipment arrangement is available under limited eligibility, where other flights are not available
The transhipment arrangement provides a pathway for stranded pets to be imported whilst ensuring all biosecurity risks are managed. Where a direct international flight into Melbourne is not operating, pet owners will need to contact a local pet travel specialist to arrange their pet's travel with Qantas. Where Qantas identifies a need, it will work with the department on making suitable arrangements for the transhipment. This process has already successfully reunited family members with their pet.
Thank you for raising this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management, Mr Littleproud
Illicit Drugs
Dear Chair
I refer to your correspondence of 19 October 2020 concerning a petition by Mr Trent Reid with 83 signatures requesting the legalisation of cannabis products.
The Australian Government's concern first and foremost is the safety, health and wellbeing of all Australians. The Government's approach to preventing and reducing the harms associated with illicit drugs is set out in the overarching framework of the National Drug Strategy 2017-2026 (Strategy). The Strategy recognises Australia's long-standing and ongoing commitment to a balanced approach between health and law enforcement.
The Strategy identifies cannabis as a priority substance and outlines a range of evidence-based approaches to minimise harm associated with cannabis use. While many Australians may view cannabis use as harmless, 20 per cent of Australia's drug and alcohol treatment services are being provided to people identifying cannabis as their principle drug of concern, behind only alcohol and amphetamines. The potential harms associated with using cannabis can depend on the age of a person, pattern of use, other risky behaviours and underlying health conditions.
The Government is committed to upholding the international drug control regime established by the United Nations (UN) international drug control conventions.
The Government does not support legalising cannabis for recreational use but notes issues relating to legalisation and/or decriminalisation of cannabis are largely matters for state and territory governments.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
Medicare
Dear Chair
I refer to your correspondence concerning petition number EN1835 to the House of Representatives for dental treatment to be included in Medicare. I regret the delay in responding.
The Australian Government understands the importance of good oral health and its role in supporting general health and wellbeing. The Government is aware of the barriers to accessing affordable dental services and supports a range of targeted programs for adults and children so they can access care.
The Government is assisting children to access basic dental services through the Child Dental Benefits Schedule (COBS). Eligible children aged two-17 years can access the CDBS for up to $1000 in benefits for basic dental services over two calendar years.
On 10 June 2020, the Government announced $107.8 million for a one year extension to the National Partnership Agreement on Public Dental Services for Adults (NPA). The extension will provide funding to states and territories to deliver additional services to around 180,000 public dental patients. The current NPA will provide the states and territories with $458.1 million from 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2021 for additional services to around 763,000 adult public dental patients.
Commonwealth support is designed to provide additional services on top of those funded by states and territories. States and territories are responsible for the delivery of public dental services including funding, planning, co-payments and management of waiting lists.
The Commonwealth also provides support to states and territories though the National Health Reform Agreement (NHRA). In 2018-19 the Commonwealth provided $193.3 million through the NHRA including $40 million for admitted dental services, and $153.3 million for specialist outpatient dental services.
Commonwealth Funding for Dental Services
|
2017-18 (Actuals) ($m) |
2018-19 (Actuals) ($m) |
2019-20 (Budget) ($m) |
2020-21 (Budget) ($m) |
2021-22 (Budget) ($m) |
2022-23
(Budget) |
*NHRA - Acute Admitted Dental Services |
37.2 |
40.0 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
*NHRA - Specialist Outpatient Procedure Clinics |
137.8 |
153.3 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
**NPA |
107.8 |
134.8 |
107.8 |
107.8 |
- |
- |
CDBS |
333.9 |
321.9 |
346.3 |
341.2 |
344.8 |
363.2 |
Total |
616.7 |
650.0 |
454.1 |
449.0 |
344.8 |
363.2 |
Note: Dept of Veterans' Affairs and Private Health Insurance funding not included
*NHRA funding for 2019-20 to 2022-23 not yet available
**NPA funding for 2021-22 to 2022-23 unfunded
Source:
NHRA figures - Department of Health - Portfolio Strategies Division
NPA -MYEFO 2018-19 Appendix A: Policy decisions taken since the 2018-19 Budget p189. The 2020-21 funding allocation was a decision of government made prior to the October 2020 Budget.
CDBS - 2019-20 Department of Health Annual Report
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
COVID 19: Vaccine
Dear Chair
I refer to your letter of 19 October 2020 concerning the petition ENI837 on provisions relating to COVID-19 vaccines in Australia.
The Australian Government is a strong supporter of immunisation in that it is a safe and effective way to prevent the spread of many diseases in the community that can cause hospitalisation, serious ongoing health conditions, or even death.
Vaccination is not mandatory and individuals maintain the option to choose whether to vaccinate. However, when a safe and effective vaccine for COVID-19 becomes available, it will be important that everyone who can be vaccinated does so, to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.
The Oxford University COVID-19 vaccine candidate that the Government has negotiated access to, is produced from a cell line developed from foetal tissue; however this cell line has only continued to be grown under laboratory conditions with no new tissue taken since the 1970s. Viruses need cells to grow and viruses that infect humans tend to grow better in cells from humans. Although foetal cells can be used to grow viruses required for vaccines, the vaccines themselves do not contain these cells.
Many valuable and successful vaccines available in Australia are manufactured using cell lines that originally came from foetal tissue, including vaccines for rubella, hepatitis A, chickenpox and rabies. There are strong ethical regulations to safeguard the use of any human cell, particularly foetal human cells.
Generally, the world's major religions (Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, the major denominations of Christianity, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto and Sikhism) consider that the use of vaccines with remote foetal origins is permitted and ethical when there are no alternative products available.
The Government has also negotiated access to the University of Queensland COVID-19 vaccine candidate, which is composed of proteins and does not make use of a cell line derived from a foetus.
Any decisions regarding the availability and rollout of a potential COVID-19 vaccine and related policies will be based on expert advice and must meet all testing and safety requirements. The Government will continue to seek advice from the COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments for Australia - Science and Industry Technical Advisory Group and the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.
COVID-19 vaccine candidates will be subject to stringent assessment and regulatory approval processes by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TOA) before being approved for use in Australia. The TOA rigorously assesses all vaccines and clinical trial evidence for safety, quality and effectiveness.
After product registration, the TOA play an important quality control role by undertaking batch release assessment and post-market surveillance to ensure the ongoing safety of the vaccine. Vaccines continue to be tested after their approval via additional clinical trials, surveillance and monitoring for adverse events. Further information on vaccine registration and safety monitoring is available at: www.tga.gov.au/vaccines-overview.
Thank you for writing on this matter.
Yours sincerely
from the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt
COMMITTEES
Procedure Committee
Report
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:03): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I present the committee's report entitled The House must go on: report of the inquiry into the practices and procedures put in place by the House in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, together with the minutes of proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr VASTA: I thank all committee members for their work on the inquiry. I particularly thank the deputy chair, the member for Oxley, for his contribution and his cooperation on this committee. I'd like to thank all the committee members for their great work and for how they have conducted themselves during the inquiry.
The committee decided in May that it would be useful to produce a record of the extraordinary procedures and practices put in place by the House during the pandemic, with particular regard to matters to be considered should a similar event occur in the future. Although the pandemic continues, the committee wished to hold the inquiry while detailed information was available and impressions were fresh. Our report covers the period from 18 March to 3 September.
This was a brief inquiry. The committee invited submissions from key office holders of the House as well as the Clerk and the members of the crossbench. On 16 June the committee held a round table for members and on 27 August held a private briefing with the Speaker, the Clerk and the Serjeant-at-Arms. The committee thanks all those who made contributions.
In response to the challenges posed by the pandemic, including the need to maintain physical distancing and restrictions on interstate travel during the period covered in the report, the House adopted changes to the standing orders and resolutions to vary how the House may meet. Practical arrangements included increasing the use of pairs to reduce the need for some members to be present and making changes to the seating plan and division procedures. On 24 August, following increased community transmission of COVID-19 in Victoria, for the first time in its history the House agreed to allow remote contributions via videolink in specific circumstances. This has allowed members to represent their electorates even when they could not attend in person.
The committee did not make recommendations in the report but identified principles central to a successful response to a critical situation. In our view, the following elements are key:
maintaining the ability to meet quorum so the House can play its part in making and changing laws;
enabling members to represent their electorates, debate and vote;
providing opportunities for scrutiny of government and providing for formation of a new government if required;
maintaining flexibility while limiting the duration of extraordinary changes;
maintaining public access to proceedings; and
recognising that some opportunities are provided only when the House sits.
Future critical situations will, of course, have their own circumstances, and the make-up of the House and technological norms may be different. But it can be expected that future members and staff will ask how the House met the challenges of 2020, and we hope our report is a useful reference for them. They will be able to see how urgent yet cautious decision-making has enabled time-limited responses to be put in place and modified as the pandemic has evolved. The House has been able to continue to debate issues important to the Australian people, scrutinise government activity and play its role in making laws. The committee commends all involved in developing and adapting to the different arrangements. As the committee reflected in the title of the report, no matter what else happens, the House must go on. I must also thank Natalie, Kate and the other members of the secretariat of the committee for their outstanding work. Thank you, team. I commend this report to the House.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (10:08): I rise to speak briefly on the report of the Procedure Committee titled The House must go on and to bring to the attention of the parliament the findings and outcomes of this committee. I think it would be safe to say that whilst the rest of Australia was dealing with the pandemic the House of Representatives was dealing with the pandemic in its own way, ensuring that the democracy, the openness and the transparency that this parliament has been known for continued.
I want to start by acknowledging the member for Bonner—someone I've known for over 20 years and a very respected member of this place—for his role as chair and the collaborative and inclusive style of his leadership. He is someone who is always open to new ideas and suggestions, and I thank him for his constructive leadership of this committee. I want to give a special thanks to the House of Representatives staff for all their hard work. I want to acknowledge the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, who have worked so hard in ensuring that democracy continues. To you, Mr Speaker, thank you for going beyond the call of duty. As I often say, you're the best Speaker I've served under since 2016! I think the collaborative approach this House has shown has demonstrated to the rest of Australia that during a pandemic, no matter what is thrown at us, the voice of Australia will be heard. The advice that we received from people involved with putting together some of the procedural changes has demonstrated, I think, good outcomes and has ensured that the work of the House of Representatives will continue no matter what is thrown at us. May the House continue to go on for many generations to come.
Indigenous Affairs Committee
Report
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:10): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs, I present the committee's report, incorporating a correction to the report, entitled Report on food pricing and food security in remote Indigenous communities, together with minutes of proceedings. In early 2020, while many Australians were watching toilet paper supplies disappear from supermarket shelves, stories were emerging of people in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities facing extremely high prices for particular food and grocery items. News outlets reported an iceberg lettuce costing $7.89 and a jar of coffee selling for $55. This inquiry was initiated in response to those reports and other longstanding concerns regarding the availability and affordability of nutritious food in remote communities. The high prices reported in the media were put to the relevant stores, and while there was an answer to each of those reported prices, it became clear that these stories reflected a persistent disquiet regarding the supply of affordable, nutritious, quality food in many remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. That supply is tenuous and needs to be improved.
Food security issues for remote First Nations communities are not new. For many people living remotely, food security is an annual concern. The supply of quality and affordable food is often unstable due to poor infrastructure, seasonal changes and the high costs of living and of operating stores remotely. Community stores are not a lucrative business. Stores are operating in situations that are very difficult and where costs are much higher than in urban centres. A broken fridge can't be repaired quickly and cheaply when the closest fridge repair person is located 200 kilometres up a four-wheel drive track. Goods can travel halfway across the country before they arrive at the stores, and there is substantial cost and fragility involved in food supply to remote places.
However, despite these challenges, the committee also learned there is a very good story to be told about what happened in remote communities this year during the COVID-19 pandemic. In March this year, biosecurity zones were created to keep very vulnerable remote communities safe from the coronavirus pandemic. Those biosecurity zones meant that more people were returning to live in remote communities without the capacity to travel into regional centres for supplies. Population influx coupled with state border closures heightened demand on stockpiles, and social distancing affecting manufacturing put additional pressure on the already fragile supply chain. With a potential new crisis emerging, industry, NGOs, communities and governments of all stripes collaborated with stores to ensure food supply was maintained despite these myriad pressures. The advent of the Supermarket Taskforce and the Food Security Working Group allowed for essential collaboration and solution-directed planning to occur. The committee heard stories of food being donated, new initiatives like food baskets being developed at pace and competitors helping one another to remove blockages to ensure problems were solved.
We have an opportunity to harness some of the lessons of the Supermarket Taskforce and the Food Security Working Group and we can build on the networks and goodwill generated through that process. There is an opportunity to make some important changes that could make a positive difference to the food security and health outcomes experienced by people in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. This report recommends several measures to build on the cooperative momentum of 2020, including a real-time price monitoring and disclosure mechanism through a point-of-sale data system across all remote community stores; a national system of licensing and inspection of remote community stores; a strategy for food security and nutrition for remote First Nations communities in partnership with states and territories and First Nations people; and maintenance of the Food Security Working Group that was established successfully during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also recommend measures to support local food supply, to improve governance and oversight and to ensure that competition between management groups continues.
Finally, it's important to acknowledge that this is the third time that this matter has been examined in recent years, and none of those previous inquiries have resolved the concerns about food prices and security that have been expressed. Consequently, complaints concerning food pricing need to be examined by a body that's equipped to do the thorough forensic examination that will satisfy the public. That's why the committee is recommending that these matters be investigated by the ACCC, undertaking an enhanced market study, which they've never done in remote communities. In addition, real-time price monitoring and much better governance training and testing at the local level should help bolster public confidence.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to acknowledge and thank all those who've made submissions or given evidence. The committee received 128 submissions and conducted hearings between June and November. Conducting this inquiry was particularly challenging due to our inability to travel, but we were able to gather evidence from a wide range of stakeholders, including residents and remote community business operators. I want to thank the Deputy Chair, the member for Lingiari—I always enjoy working with him—and the other members of the committee. I also want to acknowledge the work of the secretariat, Jenny Adams, Kilian Perrem, Louise Milligan and Sarah Brasser, and particularly acknowledge the strong support that I received from Annette McHugh in my office. I hope this report leads to positive change and I commend it to the House.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (10:16): Can I firstly thank the member for Berowra for his chairing of this committee and his engagement with us on the committee process. I thank the committee secretariat, who are in the audience, for their wonderful work. I do want to pay particular attention to my two Labor Party colleagues who were on the committee: the member for Newcastle, Ms Claydon; and the member for Werriwa, Ms Stanley. They are a constant source of advice, support and companionship. I am sure the Chair would agree that we've worked very collaboratively on this inquiry. It's a tribute to him and the way he's chaired it that we're able to do it in a such a productive way, so thank you very much to Mr Leeser.
The Chair has gone through the reasons why this committee was set up and has given some history of the events of this year—COVID and what happened as a direct result. I will concentrate for a brief little while on some of the recommendations, but before doing that I want to thank the witnesses. There are many who were frustrated because we couldn't go and talk to them. That's sad. We would've liked to have visited some of the remote stores which we were hearing stories of, but we were unable to because of COVID and the restrictions around travel. Nevertheless, we did have an interaction and we were able to produce, I think, a timely and very good product in terms of this report and its recommendations. This report provides a way forward around the issues to do with food security and pricing, store management and licensing and oversight. If you look at the recommendations as a whole, they are comprehensive but they actually provide a substantive means by which we can change things. That to me is what's most important, and I hope the government looks at the recommendations sympathetically and that we get a response in a timely fashion so we can get some work done and some changes made in these remote places.
What is readily apparent to those of us who've got any understanding of the bush is that remote communities suffer in terms of access to fresh fruit and vegetables, food security generally and the pricing of goods. This is because of the isolation, remoteness, community size and a whole range of factors which mitigate against them having the same opportunities that you would have going to a local IGA here in Canberra or, indeed, in Alice Springs. What we did see was that there are some real benefits for those stores that are a part of a network like the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation or Outback Stores. The differences the networks can make in terms of procurement, logistics and supply chains make a substantial difference in the way the stores can ensure food security in many remote places. That's not the case for small independent stores who suffer because of their lack of purchasing power, their isolation, lack of logistic support and the supply chain networks that exist in these other organisations. What we did see as a result of this inquiry is that there is a need for more competition in the wholesale market. We looked at some possible ways of dealing with that, and they're addressed in the report.
The issue of rebates was a significant point of discussion during the course of the inquiry. The committee was of the view that there needed to be far more transparency around rebates and a lot more information given to communities about the way in which rebates work and how they are utilised. There were significant recommendations in the report around the whole notion of food security. The committee recommends that the Australian government, in partnership with the states and territories and First Nations people, develop a strategy for food security and nutrition for remote First Nations communities. There used to be such, and it's now important we develop a new one. Given the agreements that have been made at a national cabinet level, I see no reason why that shouldn't happen quickly.
The chairman mentioned the COVID food security working group. Recommendation 11 in the report goes to the issues we learnt from that food security working group, including identifying improvements to logistics, assessing the viability of warehousing greater volumes of food and groceries in the more remote communities of the supply chain, and a range of other issues. When we contemplate the whole of this report, there's a great deal of benefit in it, and I do commend it to members of the parliament and to the government, most particularly. I hope they give us a timely and well-rounded response supporting the recommendations.
The SPEAKER: The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the honourable member for Berowra wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion?
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:21): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 39(d), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:21): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Fair Work Amendment (Ten Days Paid Domestic and Family Violence Leave) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Burney.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (10:23): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction —key messages
If you decide or have the opportunity to leave an abusive or violent relationship, it involves significant time and financial cost.
No-one should have to choose between their livelihoods and their safety.
This is why Labor is introducing this private member's bill to provide for 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave in the National Employment Standards.
Preventing family violence is everyone's business and all of us must take responsibility and show leadership.
This includes government as well business; communities as well as individuals.
10 days paid DV leave
Earning an income and financial independence and security are key determinants to whether a woman can successfully and safely leave a violent or abusive relationship.
A job, and job security, is critical to financial independence.
It means putting food on the table; meeting the bills or rent; purchasing books or clothes for school.
Leaving an abusive or violent relationship presents one of the most vulnerable and dangerous periods for a woman.
It requires careful planning—it involves significant effort and cost, in tight time frames.
It is an anxious process, and, for too many women, the cost, logistics and anxiety are prohibitive.
Relocating
She will need to work out a time to leave.
She will need to find a new place to stay.
She will need to work out how to leave.
This, in turn, will require money for a security bond. It could even require rent in advance.
It necessarily means furnishing a new place, including purchasing a fridge for food and a bed for sleep.
She may have children. She may need to enrol them in a new school and protect them. It is such a worrying time.
This can mean new books and new uniforms. It can mean child psychologists. It can mean an awful lot of time.
The thing about leaving violence or abuse is that it has got to be swift; it's got to be done without the abuser finding out.
It often requires spending significant amounts of savings at short notice on a bond or furniture.
Many will need to start up new bank accounts and can only gradually hide away their savings. Many people will become ill.
Legal support
A woman leaving violence or abuse may need to seek legal support.
She may need to attend the police.
She may need to seek the assistance of the legal system, including preparing for and attending court to seek a protection order.
Many are too afraid to seek court orders because they are afraid of retribution from their abusers if they are unsuccessful.
There is a lot of anxiety in ensuring that their application for a restraining order is watertight to make sure it cannot be challenged.
This means getting legal advice, which not everyone has access to.
It involves having to take time off work to attend court because it means waiting around court for their turn to get their hearing. It is about one's wellbeing.
Some have spoken of the shame experienced in having to disclose to their work that they were attending court to seek a restraining order.
It is my sincere hope that the introduction of 10 days paid domestic violence leave will elevate this issue to a status where no one feels ashamed in disclosing it to their employers.
Safety at the workplace
For many women, the violence or abuse continues at their workplace itself.
It can include constant and ceaseless threatening or emotionally abusive phone calls, text messages or emails.
It can also include the abuser physically attending the victim's workplace.
The workplace itself becomes another space in which individuals are placed at risk.
We see this manifest itself in absenteeism.
Victims report being distracted, tired and often very unwell.
No-one should have to choose
Not only is leaving violence or abuse a financially and logistically costly exercise; it is mentally gruelling.
No-one should have to choose between their safety and their income.
Individuals fleeing violent relationships should not have to worry about taking time off work, losing pay or losing their job.
We know that those experiencing family violence are often on low incomes, often lack job security and are very seldom in circumstances where they can confidently negotiate leave arrangements.
That is why this week Labor gave notice of our intention to present a private member's bill for 10 days paid domestic violence leave to be provided for in the National Employment Standards.
Many employers already provide paid family violence leave, including Medicare, CUB, Telstra, NAB, Virgin Australia, IKEA, Qantas, the New South Wales government and many local governments.
It is time for the Commonwealth government to show leadership by getting behind 10 days paid domestic violence leave.
Labor's bill
Labor's bill will amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to double the existing entitlement in the National Employment Standards from five days unpaid domestic and family violence leave to 10 days paid leave.
This will strengthen the existing entitlement and align the NES with the practices of many Australian employers, that already provide paid leave to employees of this kind.
The improved entitlement in the bill will provide for employees to access paid domestic and family violence at their base pay rate for usual hours of work in the period the leave was taken. It also applies to people who are part-time and people who are casual.
It will enable an employee and employer to agree additional paid or unpaid leave can be taken in addition to the 10 days paid domestic and family violence leave.
It will also clarify and expand the reasons for which a person can take paid domestic and family violence leave to make sure people can take practical and necessary steps to protect their immediate and future safety, and that of their children.
And, it will tighten the confidentiality provisions to remove any uncertainty about the handling of personal employee information in the workplace.
The improved entitlement continues to be available to employees of all types, including casual employees.
It will be available in full at the beginning of each 12-month period of the employee's employment, which is important, and does not accumulate year to year.
The entitlement will be pro-rated for part-time or casual employees.
Conclusion
I urge the government to work with Labor in passing this bill.
Preventing family violence is everyone's business and responsibility.
Ten days paid DV leave will provide much-needed assistance for those leaving abuse or violence, or for those who elect to stay with the provisions that many state governments have for staying home in safety and having the abuser leave. But that requires time and effort as well.
But it is also my sincere hope that it elevates this as an issue in our community, and changes community attitudes towards domestic and family violence. It just astounds me that more attention is not paid to this national crisis—a crisis that saw four women die last week alone at the hands of their ex-partner or partner. It astounds me that this does not have a higher profile in the media; it hardly rates a mention sometimes. It is women and children who are suffering in the main because of family and domestic violence and we, as a parliament and as a community, have the responsibility whether we're victims or not.
The ACTING SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Is there a seconder to the motion?
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:33): I second the motion and commend the member for Barton for bringing this to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ) (10:33): I inform the House that pursuant to standing order 110, the honourable member for Melbourne has postponed notice No. 2, standing in his name. The order of precedence of remaining private members' business notices, as determined by the Selection Committee's report adopted by the House on 2 December 2020, remains unchanged.
BILLS
Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wilkie.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (10:34): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2020 permanently bans the export of live animals for slaughter from 1 July 2023. In the interim, it puts in place additional welfare safeguards to ensure that animals are treated humanely before this ban comes into place.
This bill contrasts sharply with the policies of the government and the opposition. Members would be aware that the policy of the Liberal and National parties is to promote and to celebrate the live animal export trade in all its forms. The Labor Party, to its credit, does—or, at least, did—have a policy opposing the export of live sheep to the Middle East. However, the Labor Party remains committed to the export of beef cattle to other areas—in particular, Indonesia and throughout East Asia and North Asia.
This is the fifth time the bill has been introduced, and it remains necessary. The most recent time I tabled this bill was in December 2019. Since that time, there have been a number of significant and worrying developments. For example, in June 2020, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment granted an exemption to the northern summer live export ban, allowing approximately 35,000 sheep to be shipped into the scorching Middle Eastern summer on the vessel Al Kuwait. The government's after-voyage report states that 1,000 sheep on this voyage were exposed to score 4 on the heat stress scale, which is the highest level on the scale. This means the sheep were panting with open mouths and tongues protruding. Score 4 has never before been recorded in one of these reports. By the way, I moved a motion in federal parliament in June last year to block this exemption and to prevent the Al Kuwait sailing, but this motion was blocked by the major parties, who both voted against it.
Just in August last year, breaches of the export rules were revealed in Jordan, where local sellers dragged Australian sheep around by one leg and advertised the animals for illegal home slaughter for the Eid sacrifice. Footage taken by local investigators for Animals Australia, as well as market sellers at 10 sites across Jordan, shows sheep with Australian national livestock identification eartags being forced to jump off the backs of trucks, then being dragged by one leg and bundled into cars for home slaughter, which is banned under Australian animal welfare rules. Moreover, footage was obtained by Animals Australia again showing the inhumane slaughtering of Australian cattle in Indonesia last year, including footage of extremely distressed cattle in pain, being dragged across the floor, having their throats cut without being stunned, and bleeding to death. The animals in the video from Animals Australia are missing their national livestock identification tags, and their treatment is clearly in breach of Australian export rules.
From 1 November this year, new Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock were due to come into effect. The changes would have given cattle more space to lie down and better access to food and water troughs on live export voyages, but these were blocked by the agriculture minister David Littleproud at the last minute, allowing live cattle exporters to continue to operate under existing stocking densities for at least the next six months.
It's not as though we needed those three examples from this year—in June, August and November 2020. It's not as though we didn't have enough evidence already of the cruelty of the live animal export trade. For example, members would remember, way back in 2003, the Cormo Express, a vessel aboard which 6,000 sheep exported from Australia perished as it floated around the Middle East trying to find a port to unload them. Then of course in 2011 there was the ABC Four Corners program and the shocking revelations of the cruelty being experienced by Australian beef cattle in Indonesia. In 2012 there were revelations from Pakistan of 7,000 sheep being destroyed. Who can forget the images we saw on the television, as recently as 2012, of Australian sheep in Pakistan being buried alive?
And then, in 2017, there was the Awassi Express and the revelations that more than 2½ thousand sheep perished on that vessel, and the graphic images we saw released by Animals Australia, of sheep literally drowning in faeces on the decks of that vessel.
Clearly the live animal export trade is systematically cruel. It's not in Australia's economic self-interest and it doesn't have popular support, and the only way to end the cruelty is to end the trade. In doing so, we will also be acting in the best economic self-interest of this country as we restore the red meat manufacturing industry and employ thousands upon thousands of Australian workers. And it's not as though the consumers in other countries, in particular in the Middle East and Indonesia, won't purchase processed Australian meat that's chilled and frozen. They already do. In fact, we already export more in value of chilled and frozen sheepmeat to the Middle East than the value of the live sheep we ship there. It is a myth perpetuated by the industry and the government that Islam demands live animals. They do not. We're already exporting enormous amounts of chilled and frozen processed red meat into Islamic countries. It's a myth that there's no refrigeration in these countries. It's a myth that the industry is engaged in some sort of altruistic exercise to feed the poor.
Once we've shut down the live animal export industry, we need to also turn our mind to animal cruelty in all its other forms in this country. We need some sort of independent national office of animal welfare to crack down on the cruelty inherent in the industrial manufacture of food within our borders—in the beef cattle industry, the sheep industry, the dairy industry, the pork industry, the poultry and egg industries. And then we also need to turn our minds to the cruelty that is to be found in the racing industry—the thoroughbred racing industry, the trots, the racing dogs. And we need to clamp down on the cruelty within the pet industry—the puppy farms, the kitten farms et cetera. We have an animal cruelty crisis in this country and the government is doing nothing about it, even though it has the levers at its finger tips.
I'll now invite the member for Warringah, who will be seconding the bill, to say a few words in my remaining two minutes.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (10:42): I rise to second the Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty) Bill 2020, and commend the member for Clark for his continued advocacy on this issue.
The standard we walk past is the standard we accept, and clearly this is an issue we've walked past for far too long. The member for Clark has been trying, repeatedly, to bring us up to a standard where we do, in fact, offer better protections to animals. This bill seeks to permanently ban the export of live animals for slaughter from 1 July 2023 and puts in place steps to ensure that, and, in the interim, that live animals are treated humanely after they are exported. Many of my constituents in Warringah care deeply about this issue.
It has been a particularly trying time for the animals and workers of the live export sector this year under COVID. Since 2017, there has been a ban on live export ships leaving Australian ports after May due to the suffering of the animals in the peak northern hemisphere summer heat. But, under COVID-19 impacts on global shipping and excuses of delay, the Al Kuwait ship was allowed to leave in June, meaning they were sailing in the peak of summer heat. Tragically, we've also seen an extension and a continuation of cruelty to animals under this policy.
I would also like to raise the Gulf Livestock I incident, where, tragically, we saw the sinking of one of these ships in a typhoon off the coast of Japan. One of the crew members of Gulf Livestock I, when it went down with all its crew and all its animals on board, grew up in Warringah and had strong connections with friends and family in Mosman and on the beaches. To date, he has not been rescued or found. Whilst three Filipino nationals were found, 40 other crew—including two Australians, two New Zealanders and 6,000 cattle—remain missing. Japan has called off the search, but friends and family continue their search for Will Mainprize.
Debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
International Day of People with Disability
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (10:44): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that:
(a) 3 December 2020 was International Day of People with Disability; and
(b) the theme for this year's International Day of People with Disability was 'Building Back Better: toward a disability-inclusive, accessible and sustainable post COVID-19 world';
(2) notes that:
(a) the world leading National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is empowering people with disability all over Australia to make decisions about the supports that they receive, and to participate more fully in all aspects of our society as we recover from the COVID-19 crisis;
(b) the NDIS is now available to all eligible Australians, wherever they live;
(c) the NDIS is currently assisting more than 400,000 participants; and
(d) more than 175,000 NDIS participants are receiving supports for the first time;
(3) commends the Government on completing the successful roll out of the NDIS to all states and territories; and
(4) welcomes the Government's extension of temporary additional supports for NDIS participants during the COVID-19 pandemic until February 2021.
Last Thursday was International Day of People with Disability and across the country, where possible, Australians held events and celebrated the day in many unique ways. There are 4.4 million Australians living with disability and, according to the World Health Organization, there are more than one billion others around the globe. Globally, we have a long way to go to improve the lives of people with disability and this tough year has made the challenge even more difficult. This year's theme for International Day of People with Disability is building back better, to order a disability inclusive, accessible and sustainable post-COVID-19 world.
The Morrison government is working hard to make a difference. Following the government's successful rollout, the National Disability Insurance Scheme is now available to all eligible Australians wherever they live and is currently assisting more than 421,000 participants. More than 175,000 are receiving supports for the very first time.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government ensured that Australia was one of the two earliest nations to have a special dedicated COVID response plan for our disability community. The NDIA made more than $666 million in advanced payments to ensure that more than 5,000 NDIS providers could continue to deliver their desperately needed services. Now, to mark last week's international day, the government released a new Australian Public Service employment strategy, which sets out a goal to increase employment of people with disability across the service to seven per cent by 2025. We know that securing employment is one of the best ways to improve the quality of life of anyone, including people living with a disability. I welcome this very worthwhile initiative. In fact, my daughter Sarah went for her first job interview last week. She should find out about it sometime this week, so good luck, Sarah.
In my own electorate of Fisher, we've recently seen, with the Morrison government's support, new projects aiming to improve the lives of people with some of the most severe disabilities. For more than 20 years, Suncoast Spinners sports club, based at the University of the Sunshine Coast, has offered wheelchair basketball in my community. With the reverse inclusion approach, they made wheelchairs available for able-bodied people to give the sport a go. However, until now, there's been no provision for people with quadriplegia, those who have impairment of all four limbs. Thanks to a Morrison government grand of $243,140 the Suncoast Spinners are offering weekly sessions free of charge in wheelchair rugby—an intense physical team sport for athletes with quadriplegia. I encourage all people to give it a go. The sessions are led by two terrific quadriplegic sportsmen living in our community: Ryan Scott OAM, a long-time captain of the Australian wheelchair rugby team; and Chris Bond OAM, a Paralympic gold medallist and two time gold medallist, alongside the President of Suncoast Spinners, Dr Bridie Kean, who is a dual Paralympic medallist. The grant is paying for the program for two years. I had the opportunity to go along and give it a go earlier this month, and it was the best fun I had as an MP.
Yesterday I saw the results of another Morrison government investment in my community when I took part in the STEPS Autism Treehouse Christmas party. STEPS is a terrific charity in my electorate, which, amongst many other projects, helps young people with a disability to live a fuller life through training and support at the STEPS Pathway College and through the STEPS Autism Treehouse. This coalition government has provided extensive funding to support these programs, including a grant of $487,000 for the STEPS Positive Autism Connection Program, which works with children and young people and their families with autism spectrum disorder to support their social and economic participation within their communities. It was great to see some of the results of the work at the Christmas party this weekend, walking around in the 38-degree heat. There were so many different rides, functions and facilities for kids and their families to enjoy that in a safe environment. A big shout-out to Ariana, who turned out on Santa's Harley-Davidson.
These projects are just a couple of the many that this government is investing in to help ensure Australia is an inclusive and accessible environment for people with a disability. I look forward to seeing the leading role that I'm sure Australians living with disability will take with the support and to build back better from COVID-19.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): I thank the member for Fisher, and of course we wish Sarah well with her job application next week. We hope her future employer doesn't hold her paternal heritage against her! Is the motion seconded?
Mr Tim Wilson: I'd like to second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (10:50): Firstly, I say thank you to the member for Fisher for this opportunity to reflect on the lives of people with disability in the mighty Eden-Monaro. We have much to celebrate in the communities that I serve when it comes to being inclusive of people with disability. One such example exists in the town of Bega, at the southern end of my electorate. The Bega Valley is home to Tulgeen Disability Services, which has been providing services for people with a disability for over 40 years. From humble beginnings shaped by parents and strong community support, Tulgeen is now a significant force in the Bega Valley's economy, culture and spirit. The Bega Valley community has embraced Tulgeen and the people it supports in an open-hearted, good-natured, country kind of way.
People living with a disability, whether those disabilities are physical or cognitive, are part of the day-to-day buzz on Bega's main street. I'm thinking of conversations with people like Benny with his commentary on the weekend's football games. Whether that be on the Newcastle Knights or the Hawthorn Hawks, it certainly always brings a smile to my face. Around these friendly, everyday interactions, the wider community is keeping check and adding their own layer of care and support to those vulnerable people who are now central to Bega's identity. Sharing day-to-day life with people with disabilities over the last four decades has made the Bega Valley community stronger, deeper and more tolerant.
Tulgeen offers paid, supported employment within four social and disability enterprises. People with disability are empowered to learn, maintain and expand workplace skills and experience, with a view to moving to open employment. But there is more to life than work, which is something we should all be remembering. Tulgeen offers a range of lifestyle activities designed to build connection with the wider community, build the confidence of clients and establish ways of communication and expression. Tulgeen's Art in the Garage program is a thriving activity where clients who are interested in the arts are mentored by practising artists to develop their creativity and build on their skills. During the year, artworks are chosen to be exhibited in local and interstate galleries, libraries and other public facilities. Artworks sold at these events earn the artist a commission, with many of the artists becoming very well known and their works are often in hot demand.
Tulgeen has always been future focused and, with the support of the New South Wales government, construction is currently underway on a purpose-built facility in Bega to provide supported accommodation for people with disabilities. This new infrastructure builds on Tulgeen's long history of in-home support services. The health and disability sector is the Bega Valley's largest employer, accounting for almost 16 per cent of the local jobs. In the September quarter, it injected $6 million into the local economy. As we look to renew and strengthen our community in the wake of prolonged drought, bushfires and COVID-19, the potential of the care economy is obvious, especially as we look to build on Labor's vision for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
We should all celebrate the fact that the NDIS is now available to all eligible Australians. The scheme born of great Labor leaders like Jenny Macklin, Bill Shorten and Julia Gillard is now assisting 400,000 people. The freedom, choice and control the NDIS has delivered people with disability, and their families and friends, marks a significant step forward for this country. As with any reform of this size, constant refinement is critical, and I urge the government to continue the investment and grow the scheme. All too often we hear the stories of frustration as fragile people try their best to navigate the bureaucracy. The challenges people with disability face in their day-to-day lives should not be compounded by a scheme designed to enrich their lives. There is a real sense that there simply aren't enough workers within the NDIS itself or in the community based disability workforce. The Productivity Commission estimates we need approximately 95,000 additional full-time-equivalent workers. That was the estimate in 2014. More than six years on, we need to know the government are doing everything they can to expand the disability workforce. My vision is that every Australian town can celebrate and welcome the contribution people with disability make to community life, just like the Bega Valley does. For that to happen, we need to commit ourselves to the continual improvement and proper funding of the NDIS.
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (10:54): Just last week we had the International Day of People with Disability, a day when we are all encouraged to focus on raising awareness and understanding of the issues experienced by people living with a disability. In the spirit of this important initiative, I would like to take this moment to talk about the crucial role played by the NDIS this year and the Morrison government's plan to deliver ambitious and much needed reform to the scheme. There are around 4.3 million people in this country who have a disability, and our government understands the importance of the NDIS to these Australians. But the NDIS does more than support those with a disability. It gives all Australians peace of mind: if an Australian, their child or a loved one is born with, or acquires, a permanent and significant disability they can feel safe in the knowledge that they will get the support they need.
Through the significant challenges of this year the NDIS's role has been critical, and the Morrison government has stepped in where necessary to ensure that people with disability remain safe and continue to receive the disability support they need. In March my good friend the Minister for Government Services, Stuart Robert, acted quickly to provide assistance to NDIS participants and providers, ensuring the viability of the latter through COVID-19. This included a one-month advance payment for registered NDIS providers, which saw $666 million of advance payments made to 5,161 eligible NDIS providers to provide immediate cash flow relief.
We are on track to deliver the most substantial reforms to the NDIS since its establishment. In August the government released its response to the Tune review of the NDIS, supporting in principle all of the recommendations. Unfortunately the coronavirus has delayed implementation of these recommendations, but we are now moving forward with an urgency that recognises the importance of the planned reforms. The reform package will deliver on the final elements of the Productivity Commissioner's original design for the NDIS and on the promise of the NDIS to provide Australians with a permanent and significant disability choice and control over their flexible support package to achieve their goals. Key changes include the introduction of independent assessments and the implementation of the Participant Service Guarantee, a core commitment the government made at the 2019 election.
Recently I had the opportunity to visit a fantastic local organisation supporting people living with a disability in my electorate of Chisholm. Waverley Helpmates supports, trains and employs people with disabilities in our community. They are committed to the belief that people with disabilities should have the same employment opportunities as any other person. Those whom I had the chance to speak with at Helpmates were positive about the recommendations of the Tune review and our governments acceptance of them. With the Morrison government looking to implement crucial reforms to the NDIS from mid-2021, I look forward to working with members of my community, including those involved with Waverley Helpmates.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (11:00): I thank the member for Fisher for this important motion. In regional Victoria in the 1960s, few people knew what autism was. For people with autism and their families there were even fewer services to support them. Mansfield resident, Dr Joan Curtis, was the mother of one such child and, after looking around for support for her autistic son, Jonathan, and seeing none, in 1968 she established what would go on to become Mansfield Autism Statewide Services. Joan's philosophy was that the best teacher for the child is the parent and the family, and that's still the guiding philosophy of MASS today.
Fifty years ago, Dr Curtis believed in the importance of exercise, nature and healthy eating in supporting children with autism and, half a century later, those ideas are now backed up with substantial clinical evidence. Today, MASS is a Mansfield institution. Its mission is to support children with autism and their families from right across Victoria with person-centred, evidence-based holistic care. Thanks to the NDIS, where individuals can choose the services that meet their needs, demand for services from MASS now significantly outstrips what it can provide in its current location. MASS is planning a substantial new facility—a therapeutic care farm—that would allow it to become a nationally significant provider of autism services and care for hundreds of people every year. On a plot of land in the rolling green hills on the road to Mount Buller, MASS is planning a new day school, a series of residences for respite accommodation, a small retreat for the accessible tourism market and recreational facilities, including a hardcourt, swimming pool, walking and cycle paths and an upgraded equine facilitated learning centre.
A few months ago, I was able to visit MASS and inspect the place for its planned expansion. Director, Simone Reeves, and strategic projects adviser, Judy Dixon, showed me how the new facility would transform MASS's ability to support people with autism. They described to me how some children with autism who are completely non-verbal can come alive when they're with animals, and how some children who struggle with attention span can become completely focused when working in the veggie garden.
In July of this year, the entire MASS community held its breath when one of its students, William Callaghan, was reported missing on Mount Disappointment, not far from Mansfield. William, who had been a student at MASS since the age of four, was thankfully found safe and well. After his arrival home, it was to MASS that his mother Penny turned to for respite care to help William and the family readjust after that most traumatic ordeal. Penny said, 'I contacted them and said, "I desperately needed support," and they provided a safe place for both my boys for four nights.'
For a few days in July, William's ordeal brought attention to the care of children with autism and the support that places like MASS can provide. But if MASS is to continue to provide these critical services into the future and if families like the Callaghans are to continue to have somewhere to turn to for support, we need to make investments into these services. MASS needs $28 million to finance their planned expansion. In September, I submitted a proposal to the education minister—himself a Mansfield native—to support the plans. He knows this place well. The project would not only allow MASS to provide 3,000 respite nights per year, support 102 children through day and term placements and increase total client capacity from 220 to 480 but it would also be an economic boom for the town.
It would create 80 new certificate III and certificate IV training placements, 60 new teacher placements and 32 allied health placements. It would double the number of jobs in MASS from 126 to 250 and generate over $54 million in economic activity for the community over the next four years. At a time when demand for disability care services is higher than ever and when we need to be investing for jobs in regional areas, investing in MASS makes sense on every front. MASS only exists because of the incredible dedication of some wonderful community members: Dr Joan Curtis, who's only just retired from the board of MASS after 50 years, and Simone Reeves, who came to Mansfield decades ago as a volunteer to MASS and has never left. To mark this year's International Day of People with Disability I'd like to recognise the work of each of these individuals and the many more who have built this Mansfield institution over decades. I call on the government to come to the table with investment and help MASS transform the lives of people with autism for many decades to come.
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (11:05): On 3 December we marked the International Day of People with Disability. As an educational and development psychologist who has researched and worked with people with autism spectrum disorder and people with intellectual disabilities, I feel privileged to contribute in this area, especially through my work on the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS and as co-chair of Parliamentary Friends of Disability and Parliamentary Friends of Hearing Health and Deafness.
If we rewind the clock 20 years to when I first started my career we can see significant improvements to the lives of people with disability. It is incredible to see the way the NDIS has grown over the last seven years. The NDIS is now available to all eligible Australians no matter where they live. It is currently assisting over 400,000 participants. In my electorate of Reid 1,655 constituents benefit from this scheme, providing greater support and choice in their lives. I commend the Australian government on the successful rollout of the scheme. I would say that this is one of the most important social reforms in Australian history. I proudly note the bipartisan support for the NDIS, which will entrench the program into the fabric of Australian life for years to come. Within the next five years the NDIS will enable an estimated 500,000 Australians who have permanent and significant disability to access supports, many for the first time.
The theme of this year's International Day of People with Disability is 'Building Back Better: toward a disability-inclusive, accessible and sustainable post COVID-19 world'. The coronavirus crisis has disrupted every aspect of Australian life but it has especially impacted people with disabilities and their families. The coronavirus places people with disability at increased risk from the virus itself, and there's the serious impact of having routines and support services disrupted.
When coronavirus hit our shores the Morrison government acted quickly to protect the overall population and in particular our most vulnerable Australians. Australia was one of the first nations to have a special dedicated COVID-19 response plan for our disability community. In consultation with governments at all levels, disability and health sectors, academic and NDIS participants, we developed a plan that puts people with disabilities at the centre. Flexible approaches to service delivery such as telehealth, home medicines delivery and infection training meant that those in the disability sector had the best possible defence against the coronavirus. In this period the Morrison government made sure that our NDIS participants had a range of temporary measures to support them through the crisis. The NDIA made $666 million in advanced payments to more than 5,000 NDIS providers, ensuring much needed financial supports and continuity of services.
I also want to commend the carers, health workers and service providers for the work they do across my electorate of Reid to ensure that people with disabilities can reach their full potential and have the best possible quality of life available. For instance, Mr David Clarke, the Chief Executive Officer of ParaQuad New South Wales, located in Newington, makes sure that those living with spinal cord industry have the advocacy and support needed to live a life of choice and independence. MAX employment in Burwood works closely with clients who have a disability to help them engage in the Australian government's Jobactive program. They are one of the many services in our community that help to connect clients who have a disability to meaningful employment, which provides greater financial independence and a sense of purpose.
The Sir Rodan and Lady Cutler Foundation offer transport to members of the community who are disabled so they can attend medical appointments. This year I delivered on a 2019 election commitment to supply a $60,000 wheelchair-accessible vehicle for their use. I'm so pleased that the Morrison government could support their organisation in this way. Eurella Community Services in Burwood, led by CEO, Patricia Abraham, provides early intervention, in-home services, social programs and employment opportunities for people with disability. They do a great job and are always so welcoming to the wider community. And Aspire Early Intervention in Newington, led by Dianne Verstappen, provides early intervention programs to children with disability.
I could go on, because in Reid we have many organisations assisting people with disability. Our local service providers, carers and community groups put their clients at the centre of what they do. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (11:10): I'm pleased to speak to this motion, but I'm staggered that in crying about the positives of the NDIS those opposite seem to have no idea of the harm being done to too many people as they struggle with plans and plan reviews.
No-one needs the National Disability Insurance Scheme until they do, and any of us could find ourselves needing to use the system. That was the case for Tony and Kenn. They had been together for many years before applying for the NDIS. Kenn's acceptance into it came a week after his death. Tony's experience at that time has put him off applying for himself now that he has his own disabilities. This should be a system that supports people, not scares them, or frustrates them or reduces them to tears. But that's what it's doing. Here's a message I received on Friday from a woman who's been an advocate for her own child and supported other parents for years. She is formidable, but right now she's desperate. She says she feels like she's a breaking point, having had $35,000 cut from their plan—a 57 per cent cut. She really is at the end of her tether and needs to seek support.
The NDIS is doing to some people what robodebt did to many; it's pushing them to the edge. It's sending them for their own medication and mental health plans as they cope with the depression, anxiety and stress of supporting someone on the NDIS. The government cannot allow this to continue; they cannot ignore the pleas for help from so many people. It's the introduction of independent assessments, which are seen as a way of reducing costs, making it harder to claim and taking away supports people are currently receiving. There were stories like those in The Saturday Paper last weekend which point to an agenda by this government to reduce the control people have over their own lives. That's the opposite of the aims of the NDIS.
To get a snapshot of the current situation in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury in my electorate of Macquarie, I collected case studies—dozens of them, in fact, in recent weeks. I asked people about the good, the bad and the ugly. Some have shared the positives of the fact that when they do have funds for therapies how those can help with mobility, emotional health, occupational therapy and exercise. Nathaniel, from Winmalee, said, 'It's been a lifeline,' while he tries to fix his life. But there are way too many failures. One person pointed to going to numerous appointments with her sister, saying the same things over and over again and being stressed because the system is so hard to understand. She said, 'My sister cannot navigate it at all'. There was a woman who manages 30 clients with primary autism. She said that she faces with them review meetings with arrogant staff and that she spends unpaid hours counselling clients and parents because they didn't get the things that they needed.
Another care worker has raised real concerns about being on the inside and seeing how clients are charged very high rates. Participants and carers talk about the high cost of reports—not just in the cost of money but the cost of time and the cost of stress. The plan review process is the source of much pain: 'Gruelling,' Lauren describes it as. There's a lack of transparency around plan reviews and people have to spend hours emailing, phoning and attending appointments in the two months leading up to reviews, only to find that reports are ignored by planners. One person described planners who have no genuine understanding of disability and little sympathy for what often feels like a desperate situation.
These are the sorts of comments that people have given me. These are NDIS participants, parents and family members, or, sometimes, partners, and they cope with a lot. I asked parents what their worst day looks like, and these were some of the things they told me: aggressive outbursts and their other children being exposed to violence; meltdowns from the moment their child wakes up to when he goes to sleep—'meltdown' was probably the most commonly used word in the case studies I was given; and waking exhausted, having been woken four times each night by their eight year old high-needs son, who is constantly with them until he finally falls asleep at 10:30 pm and they go to bed anxious and worried about how to help them. This is even when plans are good. Claire, who has a son with autism and ADHD, says on her worst day she wants to curl up and cry. In fact, lots of mums admit to crying at the end of the day, or during the day, for feeling like a failure. They talk about anxiety, stress, doubt and shame for not being able to provide the help their child needs. When someone says to me, 'This is all too much; I'm a resilient person but even I'm getting broken,' I know something is wrong. A system that is breaking people is a system that is broken. It can be fixed, but it is a test of whether those opposite really believe in the NDIS.
Debate adjourned.
International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:15): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) 25 November 2020 marked the United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, beginning the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence;
(b) approximately 45 Australian women have been murdered in a domestic violence homicide this year;
(c) one in three Australian women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by a man since the age of 15; and
(d) the COVID-19 pandemic has seen an escalation of domestic abuse, with more women accessing online services, and more men seeking support for abusive behaviour;
(2) commends the work of the family, domestic and sexual violence sector, which continues to deliver vital services to men, women and children amidst the pandemic;
(3) acknowledges that many family violence organisations are struggling to meet the demand for services—yet the Government has provided no additional funding in the budget; and
(4) urges the Government to:
(a) listen to the family violence sector and respond to their calls for more support to help women and children flee violence; and
(b) ensure the full resources of Government are used to eliminate family violence from our community.
Each year, from the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November until world Human Rights Day on 10 December are the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence. This year, advocates from more than 6,000 organisations across 187 nations are leading their communities in calling for the prevention and elimination of violence against women and girls. It is to our great national shame that, more than two decades after the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, one Australian woman is still being brutally murdered by a current or former partner each and every week.
This year I was pleased to participate in the launch of the 16 days of activism in Newcastle, in Civic Park, at a public vigil. I'd like to thank the University of Newcastle's Gender Research Network for taking the lead, and I'd also like to recognise the tireless work of all our community based organisations that give so much of themselves to support women and children fleeing violence, despite a desperate lack of resources. I'd particularly like to acknowledge the important contributions of Nova For Women and Children, Jenny's Place and Warlga Ngurra in Newcastle. Each and every day you are on the front line of this diabolical scourge, giving women the support, advice and assistance they need to stay safe and to take what are often the hardest of steps to leave a violent relationship safely. And I know that 2020 has been harder than ever, with more and more women seeking your help. While most of us were confined to our homes for safety, many women found that home is, in fact, the least safe place to be. It's clear that there can be no greater priority for our national leaders than to ensure that all women and children are safe in their homes, at school or at work or whenever they go in the world.
I have raised this exact point in parliament many, many times. Indeed, in one of my first speeches for this 46th Parliament I called on the government to make the reduction of gendered violence a key metric by which we should be judged. Regretfully, while the Morrison government has committed some funding and there have been some promising words, there is still an unconscionable gap between the government's rhetoric and its actions. In fact, only last week it progressed a reckless plan to effectively abolish the Family Court. This was despite repeated warnings from across the community and legal sectors that this will leave women and children fleeing violence without critical support at one of the most vulnerable times in their lives. Similarly, while the Prime Minister has regularly asserted his wish to do everything possible to address family and domestic violence, this was not reflected in the federal budget—far from it. Indeed, the budget made a $1 million cut from the government's antidomestic violence education program in Australian schools, Respect Matters.
Let's be clear: until the government properly invests in the critical frontline services, commits to genuine reforms and provides proper support structures, women are going to struggle to get the support they need to escape violence and build independent lives. There is much that needs to be done. Of course it is about providing more for the frontline services charged with helping women to flee violent situations, but it's also about proper funding of our courts and our community legal services. It's about investing in social and affordable housing. It's about raising JobKeeper to a liveable rate and investing more in Centrelink's face-to-face service delivery, not shutting down offices, as the Morrison government plans to do in Newcastle. And it's about ensuring that all other community services have the funding they need to deliver what our community needs them to do.
The Morrison government also needs to back Labor's call for 10 days of paid domestic violence leave, which will give women the security to flee violence and get back on their feet. You could start today by supporting the private member's bill that Labor has introduced this morning. Regrettably, the Morrison government is short on all these measures. That's why 16 Days of Activism is so important, but we mustn't stop there. Each and every day we must demand that the full resources of government are used to ensure that women and children are safe and supported. It's time to act. It's time to end this national scourge.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Is the motion seconded?
Dr Aly: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (11:21): Many of us in Queensland and, in fact, in Australia will remember where we were when news broke that Brisbane resident Hannah Clarke and her three children were brutally murdered in a suburban Brisbane street earlier this year. The loss of human life was shocking, and I believe it has started to make more of our fellow Australians aware that domestic, family and sexual violence is a growing issue throughout our communities. The story of Hannah Clarke and her three children is by no means an isolated one. Sadly, as this House's committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs has heard during our ongoing inquiry into this issue, domestic and family violence is endemic in Australia. Every day, 12 Australian women are hospitalised because of domestic and family violence, and every nine days a woman is killed by her current or former partner. Unfortunately, I don't think we've seen the extent of it yet. Lockdowns have increased stress in many intimate relationships while making it more difficult than ever for family violence to be reported. It is possible, perhaps likely, that these figures will increase when the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic become clear.
However, contrary to the suggestion by the member for Newcastle, the Morrison government has taken a strong position on reducing family, domestic and sexual violence and is continuing to provide record levels of support to keep women and children safe at home, at work, on the streets and online. In March 2020 the government committed $150 million to respond to expected increases in DV during COVID. This is in addition to the $340 million allocated by this government in the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. The 2020 federal budget included, for the first time, ongoing funding for 1800RESPECT as well as additional funding for the Help is Here campaign until 2021. It also allocated $4.8 million for the Family Violence and Cross-Examination of Parties Scheme. Most recently, the government brought forward legislation that has enabled the $13½ million pilot program to enhance the protections afforded in the Family Court system called the Lighthouse Project. This will identify at-risk families early, provide them with specialist support and fast-track their cases, with appropriate security arrangements in place.
However, there's always much more to be done. The inquiry—of which I'm chair, with the member for Newcastle as deputy chair, and I want to thank her for bringing this important motion on today—has heard evidence from representatives of law enforcement, peak bodies working in communities, Indigenous Australians, aged-care representatives and members of the LGBTI+ community, all of whom work directly with perpetrators, victims and their families who've experienced this kind of violence. Without pre-empting the findings of our committee's inquiry, I can say that many have shared their concerns that unless we drive change at a community level we will continue to see rates of violence increasing.
All forms of domestic and family violence have their genesis in a lack of respect for one's partner or former partner. Many witnesses who gave evidence to the inquiry were able to speak to the effectiveness of perpetrator programs and the benefits of community awareness programs, like No Wrong Door, Breaking the Silence, Change the Story, NO MORE and Stop it at the Start. However, real change in attitudes and behaviours will come at the grassroots and in families—inn homes. I believe we need to identify the influences in our schools, community organisations, sporting clubs and workplaces that can lead the way in reinforcing the message that violence is never acceptable. Undoubtedly, positive role models who can lead by example will be a vital step in the journey forward. If we can encourage our young people from an early age to develop healthy relationships, I believe that will be a terrific start.
Our committee's report will help shape the next National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. This presents a crucial opportunity to reform our approach to family, domestic and sexual violence, and to identify levers and entry points we can use to eliminate this violence from our community. I know that the government understands the crucial importance of coordinated action and the focus we need on preventative measures. I encourage the government to take note of our committee's report, when it's presented, and ensure the next national plan has a long-term vision to shape and change behaviours and attitudes so that we can ensure, each year, that fewer women and their children experience violence.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (11:26): I would like to commend the member for Newcastle on raising this motion in the House, talking about the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and the 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence. This is something that I have been really aware of and interested in, broadly, since 2008. To be truthful, I didn't have much idea of White Ribbon, which we know originated in Canada and was originally a vehicle for men to stand up and say, 'No more; we do not want gendered violence; we do not want violence against women.' Men wanted to be able to stand up and say, 'We want to stand together as a brotherhood of nonviolent, peaceful men in the world.' I want to commend all the good blokes who make the pledge for White Ribbon, who are really good people and want the violence, broadly against women, to stop. We know there are male victims but we also know the statistics overwhelmingly show that women are victims of domestic violence. So, again, to the men who take the pledge, to the good blokes: thank you, because when women are safer and girls are safer then everybody is safer in our world.
I first came to be heavily involved in White Ribbon when I worked as a radio broadcaster doing talkback. I would very occasionally get a call from someone who, in a very coded way, was reaching out for assistance, for help, and was just trying to signal that all was not well in their world. I became particularly attuned to what that meant for those people, in those times, and I would always refer them to services such as Port Stephens family services like Interrelate or Jenny's Place. There were a raft of services in our area that did incredible work. They provided that first point of call when someone was in a position where they felt that things weren't as they should be in a normal, healthy, happy relationship in a domestic situation.
I think that's the other great travesty about domestic violence: it's more often than not perpetrated by someone who also purports to love that person. That is one of the great scourges of it. I used my radio program over the years to shine a light on domestic violence, and one of the ones that really stuck with me was when I spent some time talking on the radio with a constable, Shelley, out of Cowra. She was a police officer. I think it was around 2008 that we chatted. She came home, a year or two before that, to find that her father had bludgeoned her mother to death and then had murdered her two children. She had, in fact, escaped domestic violence and gone home to live with her parents, because, as a police officer, she needed child care when she was on duty. He had also drowned the dog. I know this is very graphic, but I'm telling you this because these things are happening in our community. She was a police officer, and she fended him off. When she got home from duty, he went to attack her with an axe—she fended him off. This was her own father. He went to prison and subsequently murdered a cellmate.
I'm not using this to try to be dramatic, but I'm just saying these things happen in our community. The more we can do to put in place proper programs—once upon a time we turned our eyes away from domestic violence and said, 'Look, it's none of my business.' It is all of our business, particularly at the highest levels of government, if we do not have the systems in place to properly support people so that they can stay at home and stay safe. I can't stand the question, 'Why didn't she leave?' 'Why should she have to leave?' is the question I ask. People deserve to be safe in their own homes. As a broader community, we have an obligation to ensure that the system doesn't fail people. As legislators, we have a legal responsibility to ensure that people are safe in their community, that they have somewhere to turn and that the brilliant organisations that are supporting them are resourced enough to do the job that they need to do. They are overwhelmed.
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (11:31): Violence against women is a global problem, occurring in a wide range of circumstances that include crime, wars and, sadly, in homes across the world and across our great country. Obviously, they're all complex areas that require a multitude of responses. Before I highlight some of the Morrison government measures, I think it's important to outline a productive approach to domestic violence solutions. My view is that there are a number of barriers to progress that no longer can be ignored. They include virtue signalling in place of meaningful action, ambiguous or misleading language in describing the problem and policy responses, and unnecessary politics around this issue. It's important that we address these three barriers, otherwise we'll all continue to be frustrated with progress and, more importantly, we will fail to achieve better outcomes for victims.
With regard to virtue signalling, we must understand the difference between raising awareness to build consensus for action and engaging in the completely ineffective virtue signalling that sometimes leads many to declare their position on domestic violence rather than making a meaningful contribution to preventing it or addressing its consequences. I could use my own experience growing up in an environment where domestic violence was the norm in many households. I could approach this debate from my own mother's point of view as a victim, but instead I prefer to focus on solutions and resist playing the very emotive blame game. Whether in this place or in our institutions, businesses, community groups, families or homes, simply declaring that you are against domestic violence is just not enough. It merely puts you in step with the decent norms across Australia. We must all hold ourselves to a higher standard that says violence, bullying and/or controlling behaviours towards women and children—or anyone, for that matter—are just not acceptable, and they must stop.
Many Australians and organisations already share my preference for meaningful action. Given the privacy sensitivities, the general public are often not aware of contributions to prevent, intervene in or ameliorate the effects of domestic violence. I'd like to commend the actions of one such business. Last week, in my office, we assisted a constituent suffering through a domestic violence situation—we try to help as many people as we can. While it's not appropriate to publicly describe the exact circumstances, I can say this: Suncorp Bank promptly assisted the woman in a manner that improved her safety and made her feel supported, and I acknowledge their efforts. When the private and public sectors, and individuals, take well-considered, appropriate action with their behaviours, we can move forward powerfully as a society.
With regard to the language that we use to describe problems and solutions, we should be clear, we should be accurate and we should be just. I worry that terms like 'gender based violence' sometimes have a minimising effect. Equally we must be careful of our choice of words for the victim's sake. If someone has been violently assaulted, we should say exactly that. If there's a family in distress with a high level of verbally abusive behaviour, we should say so because, if we fail to differentiate what's actually going on, even though this could be confronting for some, we are unlikely to get any of the intervention measures right.
With regard to unnecessary politics, we must resist the manner in which commentators and others—many of them in left-wing style—conflate issues to pursue their broad agenda throughout our society. I think a much better approach is a liberal one, which is to take each victim, offender or other person involved as an individual and for individuals to take responsibility for their actions. We need only to improve it further by individuals treating all individuals with respect and having systems that allow for that.
In relation to meaningful action on domestic violence, I acknowledge and support the work of both the Attorney-General and the Minister for Women, including measures to enhance domestic violence protections for Family Court users. A local positive action example in my electorate is in Southport: Men of Business, or the MOB Academy. I commend Marco Renai, for founding MOB, and I commend all those involved in taking early positive action by mentoring young boys to be fine, respectful and aware young men. National positive action is the government's significant and ongoing investment in addressing domestic violence, including a $150 million COVID-19 domestic violence support package. Let's tell the positive stories about respect for women and action by this government and by organisations like Suncorp and MOB Academy that are making a difference. That way, we replicate the positive progress and avoid the blame game that has gone on for too long.
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (11:36): One in three women in Australia have experienced physical or sexual violence from a cohabiting partner. I rise to support the member for Newcastle's motion with all the strength I possess because 45 Australian women have been murdered by domestic violence in this year alone. And I support the member for Newcastle's motion because the COVID pandemic has aggravated an already sickening situation. And I support the member for Newcastle's motion because something needs to be done now. I thank and commend the member for shining a light on an issue of national disgrace—an issue of crisis upon which this House has too often been silent.
The scourge of domestic violence in this country calls for real leadership. Regular acknowledgments of particular tragedies is simply not good enough, but that is what has been offered by the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government over the past seven years. In the midst of a year when experts called for heightened vigilance, the Morrison government quietly slashed more than $1 million from the school based anti domestic violence education program Respect Matters. In the 2020-21 budget, this government halved its funding commitment to this vital program, cutting almost $1½ million across the forward estimates. Cultural change is hard won in the best conditions. It cannot and will not be won without real commitment from the federal government. Cultural change requires brave and uncompromising leadership, and it requires brave and uncompromising leadership every day—not just a headline after another case of catastrophic violence. Too many women and children have been left broken, scarred and abandoned because of this inaction. Instead, we need to press a national conversation, and that conversation must not discriminate based on culture, creed or geography because domestic violence does not.
Our message needs to be simple and clear: we value women, we value children, we as a parliament value women and children, we as a nation value women and children, and we will do whatever we can to protect those who are suffering from this scourge. The safety of these people, particularly women and children, is everyone's business inside and outside this House, and everyone has a role to play. When I was mayor at the Surf Coast Shire, we introduced groundbreaking 10 days of family violence leave. This leave enables women to escape a violent situation and protect their children from such exposure. Importantly, it enables women to maintain a job, a wage, their superannuation and a sense of normality. It is the position of our party, and I thank the shadow minister for families and social services for earlier today introducing her private member's bill which seeks to secure 10 days of family violence leave for everyone.
Family violence organisations do an unconceivably difficult and vital job. Every year domestic services demand reaches epidemic levels. 1800RESPECT alone provided 20,000 services in the 12 months to 30 June. This represents a 65 per cent increase in service provisions from the previous year. It is the responsibility of this House to equip family violence workers to do their job effectively. Too many family violence organisations are struggling to meet the demand for their services, yet the Morrison government failed to provide additional funding in the budget and now they're hoping to cut the Family Court—another step in the wrong direction. Indeed, it has cut additional funding where it is most needed.
This government needs to listen to the family violence sector. That sector has called in a singular chorus for more support—more support to help women escape violence; more support to help children escape violence; and more support to end violence. I support the member for Newcastle's motion and I thank her for it. Thank you.
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (11:40): I consider myself very lucky. During my younger years, and more particularly during my teenage years, my father would say to me quite often, 'You always treat women with respect. Women are not objects, and you never raise a hand to a woman.' Remarkably, yesterday I was sitting at lunch with my 13-year-old boy, who's going on 18, and I heard myself saying to him, 'You must respect women. Women are not objects, and you never raise a hand to a woman.' And it starts at home. You can have all the funding in the world—and we have to have all the funding in the world for this very issue—but respect for women starts at home. I'll do the same with my boys through their teenage years and I hope, just like my father, that they turn out to be gentlemen.
As a police officer in a country town for a number of years, I saw domestic violence firsthand and I saw it at its ugliest. However, what I also saw were victims who had the strength and courage to report it, to stand up to those monsters, those bullies, because the fear of that was quite often more than the fear that they were experiencing when they were being assaulted. The fear was: 'What am I going to do if I can't support the kids? What will happen if I report this? What will happen if I go to court?' It's the fear of the unknown. But that courage for them to stand up was remarkable as was the courage, dedication and determination of those working in domestic violence services who were quite often people who had suffered at the hands of a male partner. They were there for those victims when they needed it. They were there 24/7 providing those services, providing advice, providing accommodation often at their own expense.
I thank those people who are strong enough, those women who are strong enough, to stand up and report the violence. I thank those people who work in the services providing that support for the victims and I thank the member for Newcastle for bringing this motion today to acknowledge the recent International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I spent the day in Coffs Harbour and was part of the Coffs Harbour SAY NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE campaign. Domestic violence is everybody's business and, as I said, it starts at home. Our community threw its full support behind the SAY NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE campaign that day.
We, as a government, have committed to ending and preventing violence against women and their children and we'll continue to work with the states and territories and communities to identify how to work towards this important goal. It is completely unacceptable that one in four women experience violence by an intimate partner and this year, on average, one woman has died each week. It is preventable, and we need to work together to end domestic violence.
I helped launch the Coffs Coast SAY NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE campaign on 24 November, the day before International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I want to mention all the stakeholders. All the members in the House know that campaigns are always more successful when they are grassroots campaigns—and this certainly was. The 16-day Coffs Coast SAY NO TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE campaign was led by NSW Police and local domestic and family violence specialist services such as Warrina. It had the support of the Coffs Coast Committee against Domestic and Family Violence. It also had support from the Coffs Harbour and District Local Aboriginal Land Council. On that day, as individuals and as organisations, we all agreed to call out domestic and family violence. We stood as a community and resolutely said no. I thank them for their efforts.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (11:45): I thank the member for Newcastle for bringing this issue to the House. I also thank every member in this House who has spoken on this very important issue and for the contributions they have made on this motion today. I would like to note that a group called Parliamentarians for Action to Reduce Violence against Women and Children has been started. The three conveners of that group are me, the member for Reid and Senator Larissa Waters. We launched that group on 25 November, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, with Our Watch. That day marked the beginning of 16 days of activism. As other members here today have noted, 16 days is simply not enough. In too many parts of the world, and for too long, being born a girl means that you start life at a disadvantage and that you carry that disadvantage with you throughout life—economic disadvantage, social disadvantage, lack of access to education, and being subject to barbaric practices such as female genital mutilation, forced marriage, violence and slavery.
In Australia, we are not immune. So far this year, 45 women have been murdered by a partner or former partner, and one Australian woman in three has experienced physical or sexual violence by the time they are just 15. Women in Australia have a lot to be thankful for, but we cannot celebrate our success in this country in terms of gender equality simply because there are more of us here in the House—especially not when many of our sisters, mothers, aunties and daughters are still suffering the sting of inequality. We can make a difference, but not through words and platitudes. We need action. As a start, we need to recognise that violence, and violence against women, is not always physical. Psychological abuse in the form of coercive control has a lasting impact. Manipulation, surveillance, isolation, degradation, humiliation and threats are all part of coercive control behaviours.
Coercive control is seen as a predictor of violence, but for several reasons it is often missed. The first reason is that, in a relationship where one party is the perpetrator, coercive control becomes normalised, it becomes part of that relationship. We need to raise awareness and education about what constitutes a healthy relationship and why coercive control behaviours are not normal. The second reason is that coercive control is not a crime. It is not against the law in Australia for a male to consistently belittle his partner, to control her finances, to control her movements, to trap her in the home, to keep her from seeing family and friends, to threaten her, to hold her in fear and to chip away at her every single day until there is nothing left of the woman that she was.
Criminalising coercive behaviour, as they have in other countries like Scotland, where the domestic violence act now recognises a course of conduct offence, is a start. It is perhaps the most important start because it signifies political will to take proactive steps towards addressing violence against women and against children. But it can never be the whole solution. We need education and we need to reach those women who are most isolated and, frankly, least likely to know or care about what goes on in this place. We need to reach women who don't turn on the TV and watch parliamentary proceedings. We need to reach women who are just trying to survive another day without getting beaten, punched, kicked or put down. We can't do that from here. We need to resource and fund those who can, the frontline workers and services who have access to some of the most isolated women. We can stand here—I can stand here—and speak about this issue every day for hours, but that's not enough. I know that. I urge everybody here to continue to do more, to start by listening and consulting those who have experienced domestic violence, and I say to them, 'Your voice matters.'
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BILLS
Family Law Amendment (Western Australia De Facto Superannuation Splitting and Bankruptcy) Bill 2020
Native Title Amendment (Infrastructure and Public Facilities) Bill 2020
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment.
Electoral Amendment (Territory Representation) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
VET Student Payment Arrangements (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2020
First Reading
Bill received from the Senate and read a first time.
Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting day.
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources
Report
Mr JOYCE (New England) (11:53): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, I present the committee's report, entitled From rubbish to resources: Building a circular economy, together with the minutes of the proceedings.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr JOYCE: by leave—Nothing in life is absolute garbage, or very little in life is absolute garbage—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr JOYCE: Oh God, it was a good line while it lasted! We're governed by the universal law of the conservation of energy and mass. You can't destroy anything. You can change its form but you can't destroy it. What that means, of course, is that you can change it to a form that's useful or you can change it to a form that's actually toxic. What our committee has done is investigated this process and come forward with resolutions and propositions to assist our nation to do its part in making sure we have a cleaner world and a more efficient and effective world. When you think about your day and examine your day, examine how much of that stuff and what you do is utilised once only. Think of the waste of that resource and what that actually entails. How much of a production of an economy goes towards just a single use? Surely it would be better for all of us if it had multiple uses.
In our committee we covered a whole range of issues. We started from nuclear, which, to be quite frank, is incredibly efficient in the proportion of waste material it has. It is incredibly efficient. It's something our nation should really turn its mind to and take up the cudgels for and use. We looked at issues that are unresolvable and not retractable, such as the Mount Morgan Mine. I don't know how we deal with the waste that's come from that mining activity. I think it's going to be with us to the end of days. We looked at areas where there's an effective path, such as Veolia, who are recycling and using waste from Sydney for everything from recycling to fertiliser to methane for power.
I'd like to thank the member for Cunningham for her great assistance. I think we had a very effective committee. I'd like to also acknowledge other members of the committee such as the member for Cowper, the member for Moreton, the member for Paterson, the member for Wentworth and the member for Higgins. I'm sure I've left some out there. Madam Deputy Chair will no doubt remind me of the ones I forgot. I believe we had a very effective committee and we did a good job. I'd also like to very much thank the work of the secretariat, who make us all look so much more professional than we sometimes deserve to be! I hope that people have time to go over this. I hope the recommendations are considered. I believe that we've delivered something of worth to the parliament and of worth to the process. Hopefully, if endorsed, it makes our nation just a slightly better place than it was before the report.
Ms BIRD (Cunningham) (11:57): by leave—I thank the House and add my words to my esteemed chair colleague in commending this report to all members of the House, but also to the broader public who may have an interest in the challenges and opportunities posed by managing the various streams of waste in our communities and across the nation. It was a challenge for the committee in interrogating the evidence presented to the inquiry over the last year as the necessary restrictions imposed by coronavirus severely curtailed the normal round of public hearings and inspections that we would have had. Having recognised this, I would like to sincerely thank the many witnesses who persevered with the committee through video and audio hearings and all those who provided written submissions for our consideration.
The report covers many of the challenges of moving towards a circular economy, encompassing both the opportunities and the barriers along the lifecycle of products. This requires actions to achieve greater investment in domestic recycling technology and infrastructure, ensuring more equal opportunity to access these solutions in all parts of the country. It requires actions to improve product stewardship and design so that the creation of waste is minimised and the opportunities for recovery and reuse are maximised. It requires national standards and specifications for recycling content to ensure trust in the product that is to be reused. It requires targeted government procurement policies so that governments at all levels lead by example and provide a more assured market to enable the development of innovative recycled product businesses.
This report canvasses established federal government policies and programs aimed at those challenges and opportunities. I will acknowledge it was a challenge for the committee that varied announcements were made in this space whilst the committee inquiry was underway, requiring us to recall government departments to provide updates. I want to extend my appreciation to those officials who did that.
The committee also explored some sectors that are not regularly considered in the waste recovery and reuse debate. It's understandable the impact of a national ban on many waste exports and the effect of global shifts in the policies of other nations has meant that the highly effective waste streams have been at the forefront of the national discussion—plastics, paper, glass and tyres in particular. However, there are real innovations and opportunities as well as potential challenges across other sections, which the committee also explored: textiles, food and organic waste, medical waste, solar panels, wind turbines and mining waste. I believe it would be a fair assessment to say the evidence was overwhelmingly that there are many innovations already available to address waste—that is, both Australian and international ones. There was also significant evidence of the legislative and policy initiatives of other developed nations that have increased their movement towards a circular economy that Australia can learn from in improving our own framework.
I would like to acknowledge the significant and interesting work currently being undertaken by the CSIRO. Whilst there are many innovations in technology, policy, legislation and infrastructure that can be investigated in the Australian situation, many of the recommendations go to how the federal government could be more effective in developing national plans, regulations and incentives to establish a truly national framework to support the development of a circular economy. The committee recognises, through its recommendations, that giving our national Commonwealth structure will require cooperative work with the states and territories as well as local governments. The content of the report outlines some areas where existing policies and programs could be improved in their effectiveness to achieve their stated objectives. I strongly recommend the report to government and all the other interested community groups who hope to see significant progress in turning waste from a problem to a new resource.
As I said, the year has been a challenging one in which to undertake an inquiry. I want to thank the committee chair, the member for New England, and my fellow committee members for the very constructive way in which they undertook the inquiry and report production. I would particularly like to pay special acknowledgement to the secretariat, some of whom are with us today, who faced the same challenges and rose to them with the highest professionalism: Dr Joel Bateman, the secretary until 9 October; Ms Rebecca Gordon, the new secretary; Ms Fran Denny, the inquiry secretary; Ms Tegan Scott, our senior research officer; Mr Peter Richardson, research officer; and Ms Tamara Palmer, our administrative officer. Thank you all. I'm very pleased to command the report to the House. I anticipate, with great interest, the government's response to our recommendations.
Mr JOYCE ( New England ) ( 12:03 ): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr JOYCE (New England) (12:03): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Report
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (12:03): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the global Magnitsky movement? An inquiry into targeted sanctions to address human rights abuses.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
Mr ANDREWS: by leave—It is my pleasure, as chair of the subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to present the committee's report for the inquiry into the use of targeted sanctions to address human rights abuse.
In 1948 Australia, in concert with the international community, boldly proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As Mary Ann Glendon indicates in her history of the declaration A World Made New, it was an Australian, William Hodgson, together with Eleanor Roosevelt, Rene Cassin, Charles Malik, Peng-chun Chang and others, who drafted the statement upon which human rights have been founded for the past 70 years. Although aspirational, the declaration became the cornerstone of conventions, treaties and other legal instruments aimed at the protection of the dignity and liberty of the individual, the commitment to the rule of law and the determination to seek justice for victims of human rights abuses.
Australians are proud global citizens. We are committed to our democracy and the importance of upholding human rights, both within Australia and abroad. Through my long involvement with the human rights subcommittee, I've watched an increase in community awareness and engagement with human rights matters. This is reflected in our contribution to international efforts to uphold human rights, our international treaties, our own diplomatic missions, our support for aid and development programs and our collaboration with allies.
Despite these efforts, we are mindful that freedoms have been jeopardised by persons and entities who have engaged in and profited from grave human rights abuses and from acts of serious corruption and who are not likely to be punished or otherwise sanctioned for their crimes. There has also been a growing awareness that country- or sector-wide sanctions such as Australia currently has enacted often impact on innocent parties disproportionately and a new way to instigate consequences for unacceptable behaviour is required.
It has long been the case that kleptocrats and other perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption have transferred assets to enjoy in Western countries with safe, stable democracies and secure financial systems such as Australia. While it would be preferable for the perpetrators of human rights abuse and corruption to face penalties in their own home countries and reparations made to victims this is often not what happens. Several jurisdictions, including the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, have recognised this problem. Inspired by the compelling experience of Mr Sergei Magnitsky and by advocacy for justice on the global stage by Mr Bill Browder, the efforts of international human rights experts and frontline organisations have focused on advocating for targeted sanctions regimes with the effect of introducing tangible consequences for perpetrators and beneficiaries of serious human rights abuse and corruption.
The subcommittee has heard evidence of Australians and their families being threatened and instances of human rights abusers investing the proceeds of their crimes in Australia, gaining access to the Australian education and healthcare systems. This is simply unacceptable. We have heard that in other countries targeted sanctions legislation has allowed governments to tackle this issue. Travel bans and seizing assets has prevented perpetrators from enjoying with impunity the proceeds of their crimes and most likely deterred other would-be perpetrators from attempting to do the same. Implementation of this report's recommendations will give Australia the option to impose travel bans and freeze assets. Working in concert with other countries, we will close the gap of opportunity for perpetrators and ensure that there are consequences in cases where they were otherwise lacking.
The subcommittee has recommended the enactment of a standalone Magnitsky targeted sanctions act during this 46th Parliament. It proposes that the legislation provide for the sanctioning of individuals for serious human rights abuses and serious corruption. It recommends that sanctions be applicable to immediate family and direct beneficiaries of human rights abusers and applicable to all entities, including natural persons, corporate entities and both state and non-state organisations.
The report also proposes that a preamble to the legislation state that systematic extrajudicial actions that intend to limit media freedom can be considered human rights abuses. Further it proposes a watch list of people being considered for sanctioning.
Members agree that taking swift and decisive action will allow Australia not only to play our part in the global Magnitsky movement but to take a lead in developing a best-practice targeted sanctions regime. I would like to extend my thanks to Mr Geoffrey Robertson AO, QC for his contribution to the inquiry—not only for his evidence in a submission but for his appearance as a witness and his document in the form of a draft bill which could be used to guide the development of an Australian targeted sanctions act.
The inquiry was conducted throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The challenges presented by stay-at-home orders and ongoing health concerns did not deter witnesses or the subcommittee. The level of commitment to this inquiry, despite those challenges, clearly demonstrated the significance of the issues under consideration and a determination of all involved to see these matters addressed.
This inquiry received evidence from a diverse range of sources, including thoughtful and informed contributions from concerned Australian citizens, Australian diaspora groups, human rights advocacy groups, international parliamentary colleagues and internationally renowned human rights legal practitioners. This diversity of perspectives greatly strengthened the subcommittee's appreciation of the subject matter. I thank the deputy chair, the Chief Opposition Whip—who can't be here today—and members of the Human Rights Subcommittee for their full and collaborative engagement, their thoughtful consideration of the issues and contributions throughout the inquiry. I thank the inquiry secretariat, including Lynley Ducker, Sonya Fladun, Emma Knezevic, Tegan Scott and Kate Goodfruit—who was seconded for a period—for their considerable efforts over the past year.
It's my hope that the implementation of this report's recommendations will send a strong and clear signal to perpetrators of human rights abuse and corruption about the values of Australians. Implementation of the report's recommendations will play a significant role in reducing the incentives for engaging in human rights abuse and corruption. I also hope that this report is received as a message of solidarity by Australia's allies and support to victims of human rights abuse and corruption everywhere. I commend the report to the House.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (12:11): by leave—I make this statement on behalf of the member for Fowler: 'I believe that a country like Australia, which values genuine democracy and respect for human rights, does share a responsibility to uphold and promote fundamental human rights across the globe, particularly in areas that fall within our influence. Where we see flagrant abuses of human rights occurring, we must be willing to call out such behaviour and take such measures necessary to isolate and dissuade further occurrences. Hence the support for targeted sanctions, as recommended in this report, makes eminent sense. It should be noted that if we adopt these measures, we will be joining with other significant jurisdictions in implementing Magnitsky-style legislation and ensuring an appropriate deterrent is present to address gross violations of human rights and corruption.
I also note that the Human Rights Subcommittee consisted of a very broad spectrum of members but it is significant there was a unanimous position adopted in support of a targeted sanctions regime. I would also like to acknowledge the extraordinary work of the committee chair—the member for Menzies, the honourable Kevin Andrews—and the commitment and participation of all members, which includes me. I also take this opportunity to lend my support for the chair's words about the committee secretariat. I commend the committee secretary, Ms Lynley Ducker, and her team—Ms Sonya Fladun, Ms Emma Knezevic and Ms Tegan Scott—for the professionalism they have shown throughout this inquiry and in meeting the challenges posed by the COVID-19 restrictions.
In the 15 years that I have served in this parliament, this is definitely one of the most significant committee recommendations that I have been associated with, and its adoption by the government would, in my opinion, only enhance the standing of our country as a defender of human rights.'
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (12:13): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (12:13): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Public Works Committee
Report
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (12:13): On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the committee's 6th report of 2020—Referrals made in September and October 2020.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr RICK WILSON: by leave—The committee's sixth report for the year 2020 considered two proposals: one referred to the committee in September and the second in October 2020. The total value of the proposed works for the two projects was $113.7 million, with the projects being undertaken in Canberra and Adelaide.
The first is the Department of Health's proposed fit-out and new leased premises at Fairbairn Business Park in Canberra, with an estimated cost of $60.7 million, excluding GST. The department sought approval from the committee to relocate the Therapeutic Goods Administration's laboratory from its current location in Symonston, to a purpose-built laboratory at the Fairbairn Business Park. The proposal also includes the fit-out of the office space that will serve as the Department of Health's second ACT campus.
The second project is the Services Australia proposed fit-out of the new leased premises in King William Street in Adelaide, with an estimated cost of $53 million, excluding GST. This project will enable Services Australia to consolidate its five current Adelaide sites into one fit-for-purpose building at 52 to 62 King William Street, Adelaide. The project will save money by consolidation, but, importantly, will not impact on the public access as none of the sites being consolidated provide face-to-face service. In the current circumstances, the committee was unable to travel to Adelaide and inspect the proposed works in person and so undertook detailed scrutiny via a video presentation from Services Australia.
As part of its statutory role under the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the committee scrutinised each project considering the purpose of the work and its suitability, the need for the work, whether the money expended is cost-effective, whether any revenue is generated, and the present and prospective value of the work. In both cases, the committee recommended that it is expedient that the work be carried out.
I would like to take the remaining time to reflect on the work of the Public Works Committee during this year. In a typical year, the committee would undertake a very busy program of work, including travelling to the locations of the works and conducting site inspections. This is an important part of the work of the committee, being able to inspect the proposed works and hear from the entities and those who will be impacted by the project. This year, however, the committee had to change quickly to holding hearings via teleconference, and undertaking site inspections remotely via presentations. I would like to acknowledge all of the entities that were able to quickly develop these presentations, which made it possible for the committee to undertake its scrutiny. Going forward, and assuming conditions allow, the committee hopes to be able to travel to locations of works again to view the proposed works in question.
I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Department of Finance, who were able to ensure that the important work of the committee could continue by facilitating referrals through the Governor-General. As the oldest continuing committee of the parliament, the committee takes its statutory role in scrutinising proposed public works very seriously. This is amply demonstrated by both the quality and the scrutiny it conducts, and the time frames in which this scrutiny takes place.
I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely thank all my colleagues on the committee for their hard work during the year, including my predecessor as chair, the Hon. Dr John McVeigh, and, most particularly, the deputy chair, the member for Makin, who stood in as acting chair in recent months. Without the tireless efforts of my fellow members, this focus on the effective expenditure of public money on public works would not be possible.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank the committee secretariat—the committee secretary, Pauline Cullen; the inquiry secretariat, Klara Fay; former inquiry secretary, James Bunce; and office manager, Tanya Pratt—for their terrific work during what has been a very difficult year for of all us. I commend the report to the House.
BILLS
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) 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 and:
(1) notes that:
(a) thirteen years after the Howard Government's so-called Intervention in the Northern Territory, there is no evidence that compulsory, broad-based income management works;
(b) the Minister decided to make the Cashless Debit Card trial permanent before reading the independent review by Adelaide University; and
(c) this proposal is racially discriminatory, as approximately 68 per cent of the people impacted are First Nations Australians; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) not roll out the Cashless Debit Card nationally; and
(b) invest in evidence-based policies, job creation and services, rather than ideological policies like the Cashless Debit Card"
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (12:19): I rise to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. We know that this bill will permanently replace the BasicsCard with the cashless debit card in the Northern Territory. I represent the people of Darwin and Palmerston in this place, and this issue is very important to my constituents and to the rest of the NT. We know that, with what is proposed around making the trial card permanent in several sites around the country, the government is trying to roll it out permanently without much interest in how the trials or the research have been going. We heard, in Senate estimates, the minister admit that she hadn't read the long-awaited $2.5 million review by Adelaide uni before deciding to make the cashless debit card trials permanent. It's not very good—a minister doesn't bother to read a review that's been commissioned by one of our top universities.
The Auditor-General found that there's no evidence that the card works to reduce social harm, as the government—those opposite—claim. Instead, it's made it harder for participants to purchase basic and essential items at more affordable prices, and we know that this bill is racially discriminatory. It will disproportionately impact Indigenous people—two-thirds of those to be forced onto this cashless debit card. This includes over 23,000 people in the Northern Territory, many of whom live in remote areas. And they don't want it.
Senator Rex Patrick was in the Top End last month with my NT colleague Senator Malarndirri McCarthy. They were meeting local people who, as I mentioned earlier, as an overwhelming majority have been strongly resistant to the permanent rollout of this card in the Territory. I commend Senator Patrick on his visit, on his interest in understanding how this card affects people's daily lives and for the conversations that I've had with him about the issue. It was great to see him up in the Territory having a look for himself.
I understand—in fact, I know because I've spoken with him about it—that he had a card issued to him. He intended to use it to make all of his purchases for the duration of the trip in the north, so he could get a sense of what an everyday person would experience using the card. I commend him for doing that, as well. They met with Larrakia Nation elders in Darwin and with the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation, or ALPA. I note that ALPA have their own card, which has been working quite well so far. They are frustrated and asking why they need to go under a new regime, the cashless debit card system, when they've got their own that is working well. But the government—those opposite—won't listen to them on that.
Senator Patrick went with Senator McCarthy to Nhulunbuy, in eastern Arnhem Land, and met with the local NT MLA, with the Dhimurru Aboriginal Corporation and with Laynhapuy Homelands Aboriginal Corporation. As I'm told, from that visit, the strong message from Arnhem Land was that the communities do not want this cashless debit card. They think it's being rushed through. They say that, every time a new government comes in, they make changes to programs like this, and they're quite frankly sick of it. In their minds, it's linked to the Intervention and more top-down punitive actions. There are also some concerns around the fact that cigarettes can be purchased using the new card.
From his trip, I think Senator Patrick learned a lot about the 2007 Intervention and about how badly it disempowered communities and how lasting the effects are. I've shared some of my views with him. I was serving in NORFORCE in the Northern Territory during the Intervention, so I saw firsthand this disempowerment in action. I'm sure that, as a former serviceman himself, he appreciates the role that institutions like NORFORCE play up there and the importance of trying to reduce harm in these communities wherever possible.
I should point out at this stage that Labor isn't opposed to income management in all circumstances, but we are opposed to broad based compulsory programs that capture and disempower the wrong people. You can justify income management when it's targeted but not when it's indiscriminate. The evaluation of income management in the Northern Territory found that, when it was compulsory, there were no improvements but that voluntary income management could be different. For example, we've heard that in Cape York, where the local community is applying income management based on individual circumstances, supporting families and monitoring outcomes, they support the card. As long as that community support continues, it's appropriate to have the card in use there. But, in an NT context, the Arnhem Land Progress Aboriginal Corporation said this about the government's cashless debit card plans:
… there is no evidence demonstrating that it creates positive change for the people who will be subjected to it. This erosion of people's choice and control over their own lives destroys any sense of self-determination, it is an attack on their basic rights, the burden of proof should lie with the Government to prove without doubt that this policy works before enforcing it upon our communities …
They also said, 'There has been little to no consultation undertaken in the Northern Territory,' to date. Why not? Why wouldn't the government be consulting with people before it forces them into a program such as this? Why doesn't it give the people of the Northern Territory the dignity of having a proper conversation and actually listening to their concerns? It's beyond frustrating and offensive for our people.
I agree with the NT Council of Social Service, NTCOSS, who said: 'The cashless debit card is a solution that does not work for a problem that does not exist. It is essential that any programs for Aboriginal people recognise their sovereignty, and it's essential that communities have control and agency over matters that affect them. That is at the heart of closing the gap. That is the opposite of the cashless debit card. Quite aside from the lack of evidence supporting the card or forced income management in general, technical issues in remote communities mean participants can have no money for food when electronic payment methods are not functioning. It can make it almost impossible to access support services in replacing lost or stolen cards as well as applying to exit income management. Internet and mobile phone coverage are not guaranteed in communities, and English can be a third or fourth language for many. With limited support from Centrelink and access to a single phone for queries and complaints, these are real and significant challenges for people living remotely.' I will stress it again: advocates for the cashless debit card say that there is not a problem, but there are problems in communities around Australia, and we know that. In the Northern Territory we have the BasicsCard. That is why people in the Northern Territory, in particular, don't want this. That feedback from NTCOSS is right on the money, I think.
There's a lot of confusion in the community around this. Pensioners and other Centrelink recipients contact my electorate office to share their concerns that they too will be forced onto the cashless debit card. And it's increasingly looking like any Australian who is receiving some sort of Centrelink payment will eventually be forced onto this card, whether they want it or need it or not. I send that warning to people. This will not be just for people in remote communities. Those opposite will seek to roll this out in a much broader way.
We also learnt through Senate estimates that the government is discussing with the major banks how to use the card through their systems, and that means the banks will have some kind of access to information about what money some customers are receiving as well as some say over what they can spend their money on. That is a big privacy issue we're still seeking some clarity on. It's not just about the NT; this will affect the whole country.
I urge any members of the crossbench with any concerns about the patchy process of this card to vote this bill down and send the federal government back out to do its homework: to read the commissioned reports on the card and to consult properly and respectfully with communities. It's clear that that hasn't been done in this case.
I want to again commend Senator Rex Patrick and others who have taken the time to get out onto country to talk to people who will be affected by this bill. These are important issues for people in my electorate, the Northern Territory and the other communities that are affected across the country, and I welcome a rethink by the federal government on it.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (12:31): by leave—I'm very pleased to continue my contribution to the Social Security (Administrations) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill of 2020. While much of the conversation around this card has focused on First Nations people, this makes sense, given that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people make up more than two-thirds of those most impacted, and I addressed many of those matters in my earlier contribution. However, we know that the government's ultimate plan is to roll this out nationally and, indeed, we learnt in Senate estimates that the government's already set up a formal working group with the big banks and Australia Post to work on making the cashless debit card part of mainstream accounts and point of sale. This is despite the fact that the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Anne Ruston, admitted at Senate estimates that she hasn't read the review of the rollout. So let's not sugar-coat this: it is going to impact a lot of disadvantaged and marginalised people in Australia, and yet we've got a government who hasn't actually looked at the review.
The cashless debit card will capture all those marginalised and disadvantaged people and tie them up into an income management regime where there is no apparent pathway for escape, no means of breaking the cycle of poverty and no way to regain agency. It will take away their capacity to make decisions about very fundamental aspects of our lives such as how you choose to spend your money. And, in doing so, it will remove autonomy, it will disempower people and instil in them fear, shame and stigma—the very things that so many people are already experiencing in these situations and shocking levers for any government to be taking advantage of. In return, the cashless debit card offers nothing—no education, no training, no support to help stabilise people's lives to enable them to move away from income management. We know that's not how you go about changing behaviours or dealing with deep systemic and structural disadvantage in this nation. This is not how you remedy poverty. Indeed, it's how you entrench disadvantage even further.
People are being punished for their disadvantage in a cruel and ongoing way, and this is the laziest form of public policymaking. It won't provide any of the necessary wraparound services that are required in order to meet the very real challenges people face and to break that cycle of poverty. It's no remedy at all. If the government were serious about helping people on income support, they would be making sure that they properly fund Aboriginal controlled organisations and services that are working in communities to address those challenges, to provide mental health support and to give assistance to find stable housing. A government would be seeking to fund training and support that might lead to employment. You might even consider creating meaningful jobs on country and in communities. But we are not actually dealing with any of those matters in this bill. We're not even able to meet the very basic fundamentals of people's lives to ensure that they have nourishment, shelter and safety in their lives. Instead, the government prefers to control the way in which people spend their money, as if this was any type of panacea or, indeed, any type of reform that is genuinely required. Indeed, the only thing that people are likely to learn from this is what an inhumane and unthinking government we have. This is just plain cruel, punitive and ideological, not to mention ridiculously short sighted.
The government needs to abandon this plan and, instead, invest in evidence based policies, job creation and much-needed community services. So I'm very pleased to stand today with my Labor colleagues in opposing this bill. We plead with the government to rethink its support of this shocking plan.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (12:36): I, too, rise to oppose the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. I personally have always been opposed to compulsory cashless debit cards, particularly given the way in which this government has rolled them out. They're just a blunt instrument. They do not address the underlying social and economic issues that many people who are receiving welfare payments face.
Previous speakers on my side of the House have really gone into detail about this, but it needs to be put on the record again that, since the rollout of the cashless debit card 12 years ago under the Howard government when the Intervention first occurred in the NT, there has been no substantiated evidence that compulsory broad based income management works. It doesn't work. In fact, we have the opposite. We have evidence upon evidence, review after review—independent, government and led by this parliament—and we have individuals, society and state governments all saying that it just doesn't work. Nor was it going to, given the way, and the motivation with which, the Howard government and then this government have continued to roll it out. It comes back to the values and the ethos of a government. And this government—whether it be back in the Howard years or today, the Liberal and National parties—basically seeks to punish. They believe that, when people are on welfare payments, it's their own fault. They believe that people on welfare payments have not been able to pull themselves up and, therefore, need to be punished. They'd rather use sticks to punish people, instead of offering carrots, when there are multiple reasons why people might find themselves unemployed or on some kind of welfare payment.
The government has done little to address the social issues in many of the communities that are on these compulsory arrangements. Take, for example, the cost of groceries and the cost of fuel. They're very, very high in these communities. When you force communities onto these cards, it distorts the market locally. It's done very little to address the drug dependency issues and alcohol issues in these communities, and this government always tends to jump on that bandwagon. There aren't enough social workers, and there are not enough diversion programs. Quite frankly, there is not enough investment in people and in communities to ensure that they are using the means that they have for their children and their communities. The government also likes to overestimate and overemphasise how people use their payments for drugs, alcohol or other purposes.
As people on my side of the House have gone into great detail to explain and as these communities have told us, many people use their payments as they should—for the basics. The problem—and it's a problem that is well known throughout Australia—is that our social welfare payments in this country are too low. That is why families don't have enough money to put food on the table, that is why families don't have enough money to buy shoes for their kids and that is why families who are on basic payments are struggling. This year we have seen some relief. We've seen the coronavirus supplement boost people who are on Newstart payments and parenting payments. That has helped to alleviate some of the poverty that we've seen in these communities—all communities—but it's only been short-term and not enough to undo the ongoing damage that being trapped on a low payment has done.
I do support and encourage the cashless debit card where it is voluntary. Maybe the government needs to focus more attention on encouraging people who may need it. There's a small proportion of people who put their hands up to say, 'I'm struggling with my finances and I do need help'. That may be for multiple reasons—it may not just be addiction related, it may also be because of debts which they've been trapped into through dodgy loan sharks. These people also put their hands up for support. But how you recruit people to put up their hands is where we need the resources.
Again, it comes back to the blunt instrument of this government: time and time again they'd rather go for the stick as opposed to investing in people to support others. Whether it be through robodebt and their blunt approach there, or through the cashless debit card, what they aim to do is control. That's the very opposite of what you'd expect from a party called the 'Liberal' Party. The Liberal Party is supposed to be about freedom but it's very much further from that. If we look at evidence from overseas, we roll our eyes as this government try again to control individuals who are on payments. That is a critical point in this debate: which communities do they want to control? Disproportionately and overwhelmingly it's our First Nations communities. Again, there's this white, imperialist view that white governors—white people in this place—have a better understanding, and feel that it's their place to impose control over our First Nations people.
Those opposite turn their backs and shut their eyes, saying, 'We're doing it for the children'. If they were really doing it for the children, they'd engage appropriately and respectfully with these communities. They'd listen to the evidence, they'd understand and they'd seek out support—and know that it is not working. Far too many individuals who are trying to do the right thing are caught up in these programs. I'm not surprised that the people of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay have pushed back. It might also be noted that since the government have rolled out their cashless debit card, and now seek to do it permanently to these communities—Bundaberg and Hervey Bay—that maybe it has something to do with the remarkable result for Labor in Queensland. It's been a very long time since Labor has held the seats of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg, and yet at the last election we saw them swing our way. Maybe the fact that this government—the LNP—are trying to control the lives of individuals means that we're starting to see communities push back.
I've highlighted Bundaberg and Hervey Bay because they're also examples of what Labor can do in a positive way.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The member for Bendigo will resume her seat. The member for Petrie, on a point of order?
Mr Howarth: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point of order is in relation to relevance. The Queensland government has nothing to do with this bill. And I also take offence at her view of the white imperialist view of this government. We have a multicultural—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Bendigo is in continuation.
Ms CHESTERS: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was speaking in relation to those policies. There are positive things that are happening in the communities of Bundaberg, Hervey Bay and Maryborough. The Queensland state Labor government has focused on an employment program. Trains are being built again in Maryborough; that is creating hope and opportunity for many people who are unemployed and looking for work. If we had a government which focused on job creation and if we had a government which focused on using its taxpayer dollars wisely—to make Australian and to buy Australian—it would be just one area where we could focus on employment.
I'm speaking about the overall approach that this government have towards people who are on welfare payments, whether they be on JobSeeker or the pension. They see people who are on these payments as 'leaners'. They see people who are on these payments as people who have very little to do and very little to lift themselves up with. And those aren't my words—'lifters' and 'leaners'—those were the words of the current Prime Minister when he was the social services minister. These aren't my words that I'm putting into the Prime Minister's mouth; these are his own words, repeated time and time again by his backbench and members of his frontbench. It is disappointing that we have a Prime Minister who was the social services minister that oversaw the expansion of the cashless debit card, a card that is not aimed at lifting people or giving people the confidence to control their finances. Instead, it is a blunt instrument. Broad based management income, as I've said, does not work.
I strongly urge the government to listen to Labor's proposed amendments, to make sure they rethink this, like with so many other proposals that they've put before us. Their ideology underpins our social welfare system in this country, and it needs a rethink. There is a real lack of evidence for the cashless debit card to continue. Since it was introduced during the Howard government's intervention in the NT, there's been no credible evidence—none whatsoever—that proves that compulsory broad based income management works. We strongly oppose the government wanting to make sure that these existing trials are made permanent. We strongly oppose any further expansion. If the government could roll it out everywhere, I reckon we'd see it everywhere, and I know in my community of Bendigo there would be pushback. Like many communities in regional areas, a blunt instrument like a cashless debit card does not go to the heart and the core of complex problems.
The majority of people on payments are doing the right thing; they are spending it where they need it. They simply don't have enough. The government is trying to cover up for their lack of payment by saying it's the individual's fault that they can't manage their finances. For the second group, the group that may need help and support with a cashless-style debit card, it should be voluntary, and it was voluntary before this government made it compulsory. By having people volunteer to be part of a program, it will be more successful. People will not resent the fact that their finances are being managed. From time to time, individuals do acknowledge that they need help with their finances, and that's where the social workers come in, the financial counsellors come in and the support programs come in. That's another thing that we in Labor are advocating for—that more needs to go into the wraparound social support services for that small group of people who identify that they do need help with managing their finances. They do exist and they are seeking help. But, at the moment, the queues for a financial counsellor are very long. Those meetings are quite often on the phone and hard to interpret. There just aren't enough social workers on the ground, particularly when it comes to remote and regional Australia. And there is not enough done to work on our cultural engagement with our First Nations people. At the end of the day, it comes back to: do you want a successful policy which sees people actually allow themselves a determination going forward to have the means to live their life, to look for meaningful work and to move forward, or do you want to keep seeking to punish people, like we've seen at the trial sites, with a program that doesn't deliver genuine reform?
I urge the government to rethink this plan. Like so many of their other plans in this place, it's a blunt instrument that does not work. It's the perpetuation of their ideology. It is a way to punish people as opposed to support people. It tries to reinforce their mantra, their doctrine, that it is the individual's fault, that the individual is bad at managing money, that the individual is not able to look after themselves. And it is quite an imperialist view, one which we've heard for centuries not just in this country but all over the world. It is time that we stop this. It is time that we empower people to feel good about moving forward, that we help them if they need support, that we make sure that the payment is a liveable payment, that we ensure there are real job opportunities for people in these communities so they're not trapped on welfare, that we ensure we are there to support them if they need support. It is time that we stop using blunt instruments like the cashless debit card to permanently entrench poverty and control.
It was disappointing that the member for Petrie jumped up to cut off my speech. I think it demonstrates the very nature of this government. They don't like to be criticised. They don't like to be held to account. They don't respect the parliament. They don't respect difference of opinion. It is really disappointing that, rather than making a debate in this section, rather than getting up and making a speech on this bill, they would seek to interject and use the parliament to cut off speakers. It demonstrates how they feel that they are above the rest of us, that they are above debate, that they are above analysing, that they just treat the rest of us like—they disregard us.
Finally, this is a bad bill. It goes against everything. It goes against the evidence, it goes against the people's wishes and it goes to the core of what this government is: mean, tricky, controlling and deliberately misleading. They are not there for the Australian people, and the Australian people will remember that, particularly in Queensland, when it comes to the next federal election.
Government members interjecting—
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (12:50): I don't mind if those on the other side want to interject during my speech. It just shows their ignorance. If they'd wanted to speak on the motion they could have spoken on it, and they didn't.
Honourable members interjecting—
Dr FREELANDER: I have spoken on this—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! Members, both on the left and on the right, will cease interjecting.
Dr FREELANDER: I rise today to speak on the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. It's not the first time I've spoken in opposition to this government's discriminatory and insulting policy, nor do I suspect it will be the last, unfortunately. The government's policies in these areas are punitive and never curative. We have seen the absolute tragedy of robodebt, we have seen the fact that they refuse to adequately fund proper housing policies, we have seen their unwillingness to create a permanent increase in the JobSeeker allowance and we know that how they approach poor people is punitive. They never seen to flinch at the absolute obscenity of executive incomes of $5 million, $10 million or even $20 million. That's okay. But the poorest, the most disadvantaged in our society, are the ones they want to punish.
I have no hesitation in stating that I'm totally opposed to this bill. It's discriminatory. It's insulting. It has unintended consequences. The bill before the House seeks to make the government's cashless debit card permanent in a number of existing trial sites, and very likely we know this is the thin end of the wedge and they'll be continuing the cashless debit card throughout the country. It is an absolute tragedy that this is the government's welfare policy. It's paternalistic. It is really insulting to the most disadvantaged in our communities and, unfortunately, it will have dreadful consequences.
There's no clear evidence that compulsory broad based income management works. There is absolutely no evidence for that whatsoever. That's why Labor is opposed to the extension of a trial program. As has previously been mentioned, if it were a voluntary program, you would have a much higher chance of success. We know that from previous income management trials, on a voluntary basis, run by a number of organisations. It's of great importance to understand that. We shouldn't come into this place and make such significant decisions about other people's lives without appropriate evidence, consultation and communication. It is paternalistic. It's discriminatory. It is really insulting to people who struggle with a whole range of problems, from intellectual disability to drug and alcohol problems to extreme multigenerational social disadvantage. For us to come in here and impose this from on high to people in those situations is totally wrong. It is against any moral imperative that I can think of. If people in the community want to use the cashless debit card on a voluntary basis, that's fine. But parliament should not impose this on entire communities without consent, without evidence and without adequate consideration.
I believe the bill before us today is racially charged and discriminatory in nature. I don't think there is any way you can deny that. This legislation would place 35,000 people on the cashless debit card permanently. It's critical that we recognise that the vast majority of them—about 70 per cent, in fact—are First Nations people. I think the government really needs to rethink this. It is now well over a decade since the Howard government's intervention, and, again, there is no clear evidence that broad based income management works. We've had a decade to gather the evidence and it's just not there. It was this legislation which brought about the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory. The transition to the cashless debit card in the NT—a technology swap, if you like—is in effect an extension and continuation of the intervention measure. That's why we're so opposed to it.
The government's whole philosophy, its ideology, is based on the very flawed idea of lifters and leaners. We know how wrong that is. We know there is strong opposition to the scheme among the communities that are affected the most. A Senate inquiry into a previous bill discovered that First Nations organisations and representatives considered the policy to be yet another example of government imposition of paternalistic policies lacking in consultation and lacking in consent. Even the Auditor-General has found no clear evidence that the cashless debit card works. That begs the question as to why the coalition is relentlessly pursuing its warped agenda. I know why. It's because it's ideological. Unfortunately, that ideology continues the damage. Community members, organisations and officials, and the Auditor-General, are all telling the government to abandon this policy. But never mind, this lifters and leaners government, which picks winners and losers, thinks it knows best and it is going to push ahead with it anyway. It's also important to note that the government is pushing ahead with this legislation while still awaiting the results of an independent review by Adelaide university. It couldn't wait to try and get some evidence.
Ideologically, the government want to push through with this as part of their lifters and leaners, winners and losers policy. It's a tragedy. They want to ram it through parliament. They want to ram through these changes that affect the most disadvantaged in our communities. Those opposite aren't even trying to hide the fact that this is an ideological attack. We do not have countless coalition members sitting on the benches opposite ready to contribute to the debate. Where are they? Absent. This legislation is going to be imposed on very disadvantaged people, the majority of whom are First Nations people, yet very few of those opposite even want to comment on it. We have complete radio silence from the coalition benches. Perhaps, at this very minute, there are members of the Liberal-National government waiting to speak, but I don't see them. Perhaps we will see members on the other side pour into the chamber ready to tell Australia why the government know best, why the government like to attack the most disadvantaged and why they want to control the wallets of First Nations people. I think it's pretty unlikely, though. I don't think they'll be rushing in here.
This is what we've come to expect from this ideological, conservative government that is willing to punish the poor but not look at the obscenity of the massive salaries paid to the executives of our biggest companies. This is an obnoxious, stunt-driven operation, led by the great marketing man with little substance or willingness to show up and own any responsibility. In spite of waiting for the review from the University of Adelaide, the government have gone ahead and committed to making the cashless debit card scheme permanent in their budget—permanent in some communities, if this legislation passes, and very likely to be rolled out further around Australia. This is clearly an ideologically-driven policy, not evidence based policy, and an example of an arrogant government who doesn't understand those who are really struggling.
I cannot understand where those opposite derive their moral authority from. Putting forward this legislation is incomprehensible. We're in the midst of a global pandemic and an economic recession, and those opposite are pushing forward with the plans to control the day-to-day finances of so many of our First Nations people. None of us here have to account for every single dollar of our travel allowance for each and every time we meet in Canberra, and none of us have to account for each of our respective electorate support allowances. Those opposite certainly do not seem to feel the need to be held accountable to decisions such as subsidising the private jet of Clive Palmer, giving taxpayers' money to a billionaire in New York, performing political stunts, misusing the Air Force's VIP jet fleet, giving dodgy grants to lucrative sporting clubs with ties to the Liberal Party, giving huge council grants to Liberal-supporting councils and doing dodgy deals in the Cayman Islands with water licences. Yet they want to control the day-to-day finances of entire communities. This is morally repugnant. I do not know where members of this coalition government get their moral authority from. If anybody should be made to go on a cashless debit card it's those opposite.
The government's cashless debit card policy is based on ideology, not based on evidence. We know it's racially discriminatory. We know the government is pushing forward and ultimately seeking to roll this scheme out nationally, yet it won't even wait for the findings of the review it commissioned before deciding to make the card permanent. I implore those opposite to cease this racially charged, ideological attack and come to their senses. This is bad legislation, it's discriminatory and it affects very disadvantaged communities. It will be rolled out further, we know that from the government's ideology, and it is a tragedy. I'm totally opposed to the bill.
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (13:02): I had the privilege of an excellent education at Christian Brothers College and—I think most people who went through Christian Brothers in the sixties would agree with me—we were taught that Big Brother is watching. We were taught about Aldous Huxley's, Brave New World, and the other Orwellian book that came out at the same time. They were horror stories. Movies were made out of them and, in these stories, you lived in a world where Big Brother watched every aspect of your lives and controlled every aspect of your lives. If we move to a cashless society, democracy does not rule our lives and we do not rule our lives: the banks rule our lives. We're moving into a society where the banks rule and control every aspect of our lives.
When I became the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland, I went to Yarrabah. There were 2,000 to 3,000 people there, and there were 16 positions of power which were all held by whitefellas. They trotted out two little coconuts who looked down at the floor and gave the departmental approved answers to my questions, that everything was marvellously well. In actual fact, there were six brand new Logan Unit houses made of fibrolite that had been smashed to pieces. Every single panel was smashed before they were taken to lockup stage. There was rioting which resulted in three people being rushed to hospital and seven people were jailed. And here they are telling me that everything's going well at Yarrabah! Some three years later, the deaths-in-custody issue broke out at Yarrabah. That's how well everything was going at Yarrabah! Yet, if I didn't know and if I weren't so cynical, I would have accepted that this was paradise on earth.
How do you get that much control? Everyone was on a government cheque or a welfare cheque, and all the welfare cheques were cashed by the department. So the government department either paid the wages or cashed the cheques. Either way, the government had complete control. That department and that departmental head had complete control of the lives of those people, and it emasculated them to a point where they were simply shadows of human beings. Every single decision-making power had been taken from them by a cashless society controlled by 'Big Brother'.
The Liberals were really founded as a little-L liberal party. Menzies had a different approach. He did not see himself as a conservative in those years when he formed the Liberal Party. They of all people should be the ones with their guns out. But they're not. They are puppets of the banks. As with many, many things in our country—in any country, I suspect—there's a good reason for this. The bloke to alert Australia to this is a bloke who went to a blackfellas' school; he is a whitefella, but most of the school was blackfellas—that's the information I'm given. His name is Andrew Forrest, from a fairly prominent family in Western Australia. His great grandfather and his great uncle founded the state of Western Australia, in fact. He was horrified by what was happening with our First Australians. He has visited Roebourne on many occasions, and I visited on one occasion, and I counted 62 people lying prostrate in the street. I tried to talk to three of them, but they were unconscious. They were just lying around drunk in the street. It was the day after payday, and 62 human beings were lying in the street.
If you take from a person every single right that he has to control his life—and the socialists are the worst at this. They have to look after the poor, and their looking after the poor emasculates the poor. Percy Neal, the mayor of Yarrabah for many years and a person who can be very eloquent at times, said: 'Minister, you simply don't get it, do you? You have an addiction to the idea that we blackfellas can't look after ourselves. Well, we were doing pretty good for 40,000 years, before you mob arrived here.' He said: 'All we ask of you is to get the hell out of our lives. We don't want to be looked after. We want you gone. That's all we want.' One of the reasons the Neal family and I are so enormously close is that I got 'em gone.
The last time I visited Yarrabah, the 16 main positions held at Yarrabah were all held by black people, not white people, not like when I went there the first time. Far from being reticent, browbeaten and terrified, they were very aggressive towards me, and other people as well. They were rioting over the absolutely shameful COVID lock-up. They weren't locked down, like the rest of us; they were locked up, and Yarrabah was a very good example of the lock-up. Eventually people started demonstrating on a massive scale. It proved to the people of Queensland that, whatever the ALP was, it was not on their side. It was absolute proof. In the face of those demonstrations and rage from people like me, within seven days the lock-up restrictions were removed. When I say it was locked up, let me give one example. When I was at Checkpoint Charlie, three cars rolled up to take stores into Yarrabah, and some of it was food. One driver was a blackfella and the other two were whitefellas. They were all Cairns residents, not Yarrabah residents. The blackfella was told that he couldn't go into the community, but the two whitefella drivers could. I said: 'Hold on a minute, Sergeant. You just hold on a minute. What in hell's name has that got to do with anything?' He said: 'I've made my ruling and that's it. I've made my ruling and that's the end of it.'
Percy Neal gave a speech and said, 'We don't want you looking after us; we want you out of here. You're addicted to this idea that we can't look after ourselves. You are addicted to it.' The first step to overcoming addiction is to admit to it. The minister said, 'I know exactly what you're saying, Percy. I know exactly what you're saying. I promise you that we will look after these houses for you, and in all other aspects we will look after you.' The big black bloke I was with laughed so much he fell on the floor. I was doubled over with laughter. She proved absolutely everything that Percy was saying. She couldn't even envisage a world in which we blackfellas looked after ourselves. She could not even get it into her head. She did not realise what a laughing-stock she had become—a very elegant woman, a very outspoken woman, a very impressive woman, yes, and a person that took away every single human right that we had and intended to continue to take them off us.
Andrew Forrest saw the horror of what is and he is trying to do something about it. I have backed him very strongly on numerous occasions in this place. Some people said, 'You're suddenly changing position.' Well, I think we are going a lot further than what Andrew was advocating; he was advocating that it be voluntary in areas where there were serious problems. If the government were fair dinkum about this and actually talked to people about it seriously, then the government would know that they can get people to agree to it. They realise that they have a serious problem and they will agree to it.
One of the greatest ladies I was most proud of—she was a contemporary of mine at school—had a terrible upbringing. The world had not been very kind to her as a kid. I'd like to name her: Jenny Dempsey is her name. She overcame all of her upbringing. Her father was a rip-roarious drunk, like a lot of the copper gougers and people who worked in the bush and came into town and were pretty riotous. He took an order out against himself. When the wife left he said, 'I'm responsible for my little daughter,' and he took an order out against himself. From my experience in Queensland, taking an order out against yourself is very, very successful, particularly in small towns because all the pubs know you. When you take an order out against yourself it becomes illegal to serve you in a bar unless you yourself go down to the police station and get the order removed. But he didn't get the order removed.
The point I'm trying to make is that the government underestimate that a lot of people realise they have a problem and will come into the cashless card. If it is done on a voluntary basis, as was advocated by Andrew Forrest in the first place, then I think we are talking about a different animal. But when you start imposing it, when you combine this with the fact that you can't spend any money over $10,000 and you can see Woolworths coming out and saying, 'We're not going to cash anymore,' you see where we're going. Woolworths and Coles and those people control the banks. Read Piketty's book. I think every person in this place should read Piketty's book, Capital. The CEO class rule the world. The CEO class run the banks. The CEO class run Woolworths and Coles. They have this place to deregulate every single rural industry. Within three years of dairy deregulation, to quote but one example, there was a farmer committing suicide every day in Australia and there was another farm worker or business supplier or contractor committing suicide as well. That is two every five days in Australia. Did anyone worry about that? No, no-one worried about that. It's only people killing themselves. We don't worry about that!
Our First Australians—I'm going to say this repeatedly and continuously. I'm going to get nastier and more vicious as time goes on, and pointed. It will get into the world press. We, as an identifiable race of people—and I'm not including people like myself who claim to have a blackfellow somewhere in the family tree. I'm talking about real, fair dinkum people that're living in communities and enclaves in the city. Those people have the highest incarceration rates in the world. Noel Pearson argued this and everyone eventually agreed he was right—the highest incarceration rates in the world. The lowest life expectancy in the world—after two years of trying to find where the state government had hidden the figures, I got the figures from one community in Cape York and the Gulf. Life expectancy for males was 43 and females was 51. That's something to be proud of as a nation, isn't it? That's something to be proud of as a nation! We have the highest stolen children rates in the world. We are double from when we made the apologies. The hypocrisy of this place, to get up and apologise when you knew you were taking the children at a higher rate than you were taking them then.
When I went into parliament politicians were ranked the fourth most respected profession in Australia. We are now continuously last or second last. Don't you realise that people hate you? You don't care how many of them die, how many farmers and farm workers suicide, how many First Australians live like this and continue to live like this. You are doing nothing about it. You say, 'Well, what can we do about it?' You race out there and try and suppress the symptoms. You ban grog in all the communities. What a farce. There is not a single person associated with communities that doesn't kill themselves laughing—as if they haven't already killed themselves—at the ban on alcohol. We have some of the best entrepreneurs in Australia running rogue in the communities. They make their own brew, as they call it. Some die on account of the brew, but we won't worry about that either!
If you are a First Australian living in a First Australian community there is no such thing as owning your own land. We are the only group of people that I know on earth that are not allowed to own our own land. If you doubt for a moment the implications of that then read Hernando de Soto's book The Mystery Of Capital and it will explain it to you, why poverty— (Time expired)
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (13:18): I thank all those who have contributed to the debate on this bill. This bill is a critical part of the government's ongoing commitment to an effective welfare system that provides a strong safety net for Australians but also ensures that all Australians take up their responsibilities and make a contribution to our community. The cashless debit card aims to encourage socially responsible behaviour by restricting the amount of money available to be spent on alcohol and gambling in communities and supporting welfare recipients with their budgeting strategies.
The bill establishes the cashless debit card as an ongoing program at existing sites, providing certainty for participants, communities, stakeholders and leaders who know that the support of the cashless debit card will continue and that the positive results of the cashless debit card can continue. It also provides for the transition of income management participants in the Northern Territory and Cape York region in Queensland to the cashless debit card. The government will work with income management participants, communities and stakeholders to support the transition and will transition participants progressively to ensure appropriate support can be provided. The bill ensures that welfare recipients in the Northern Territory and Cape York region in Queensland have access to the best technology and the best process for welfare quarantining.
The cashless debit card program is delivering significant benefits for the communities where it currently operates. The program has an objective of encouraging socially responsible behaviour, supporting budgeting strategies and reducing the likelihood that welfare recipients will remain on welfare and out of the workforce for extended periods.
The government thanks the community leaders it has worked with and will continue to work with in the implementation of the cashless debit card. It acknowledges their courage and their leadership to assist members of their communities to break the cycle of welfare dependency, improve social outcomes and support people into employment. I commend the bill to the House.
The SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Barton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted, with a view to substituting other words. So the question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
The House divided. [13:24]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (13:29): It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Oil Exploration
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (13:30): Today I was pleased to join a cross-party group of parliamentarians to welcome a delegation of passionate citizens concerned that oil and gas rigs could be established off our East Coast. Members of the Surfrider Foundation Australia and Save Our Coast are in Canberra today to meet with decision-makers and to hand over 40,000 messages of community concern about the PEP 11 petroleum exploration permit, which runs from Newcastle to northern Sydney.
The PEP 11 proponents have made clear that their ultimate goal is to establish drilling rigs in these precious waters. This would be an absolute travesty. This extension would threaten our precious marine environment, damage our reputation and impose a direct threat to jobs in our tourism and commercial fishing industries. That's why I was very proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with community members today and say no to PEP 11. I'd like to thank these community campaigners for their time and commitment. I'd also like to recognise the thousands of Novocastrians who have contacted me directly, to let me know how important this issue is to them.
The final decision now rests with the resources minister, Mr Keith Pitt. Minister, I say to you: my community has lived with the spectre of oil and gas rigs off our coast for too long. Please, I urge you to stand on the right side of history and to say no to PEP 11 once and for all.
Flynn Electorate: Agricultural Shows and Field Days
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:31): During this year, many shows and field days were forced to cancel due to COVID. The coalition government recognises the importance of agricultural shows and field days—the money they bring into towns and regions, along with social interaction and technology. Via its Supporting Agricultural Shows and Field Days program, this government is keen to ensure that show societies and field day organisers are in the best shape possible to continue in 2021. Plans are for a rollout to eligible show societies before Christmas.
Under this program, shows and field days are eligible to apply for reimbursement of costs such as rates, insurance, utilities and telecommunications. Over $340,000 will flow to show societies in Flynn and the Emerald ag show. Geoff Dean, the director of the Emerald agricultural show, welcomed the news last week that his field day would benefit by $70,000, and the Mount Larcom Show president, Michael Wallace, also showed his great gratitude because his show will benefit by $60,000. Show events that were forced to cancel in 2020 are very positive about hosting their events in 2021.
Oil Exploration
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:33): People live on and visit the Central Coast because of our coastline and our coastal way of life. It's precious; it's who we are. As pro surfer Ace Buchan from Avoca says, 'People love our oceans'.
But our coastline, our marine life and our way of life are at risk because of the Morrison government's refusal to reject PEP 11. Let's be clear: PEP 11 allows the holder to explore with a view to offshore drilling along the coast from Sydney, through the Central Coast and as far as Newcastle. Today, I was proud to join with Save Our Coast and the Surfrider Foundation Australia, standing shoulder to shoulder with our community and adding their chorus of voices to our strong opposition to PEP 11.
Save Our Coast has collected 77,000 signatures to stop this flawed and risky plan to drill for fossil fuels within PEP 11. The Surfrider Foundation Australia bravely paddled out into Lake Burley Griffin earlier this morning to call on the government to listen to our community and to reject any extension of PEP 11. My office has already received close to 800 emails, phone calls and petitions from locals who are concerned about PEP 11. These are from people like Cathy from Berkeley Vale, who echoed the feelings of so many locals by saying: 'The beach is our happy place for our family of five. We love going to the beach as our way to reset. Drilling threatens to take this away.'
Sadly, the decision on PEP 11 won't be made on the coast or in Newcastle so we have to make the case against it in Canberra. The responsibility for offshore drilling lies with this government. The Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia, Minister Pitt, as the federal minister, has the final say about the joint authority. Minister Pitt: do the right thing, stop PEP 11 and save our coast.
Play for All Australia
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:34): I rise today to both acknowledge and commend the work of Play for All Australia, which has made play an accessible, inclusive and enjoyable experience for many of the children on our Northern Beaches. Play for All is a social enterprise of worthy purpose; its mission statement declares its sense of equality: to help build a world of play and belonging for all—and to do so cost-effectively, sustainably and innovatively.
Caroline Ghatt, Timothy Smith and Gemma Hoffman identified a need within their community when a number of playgrounds were to be installed on the Northern Beaches in 2016. Though the playgrounds appeared to be accessible enough on paper, they fell short of being truly inclusive for kids for all abilities—thus Play for All was established by co-founders Ghatt, Smith and Hoffman. They well understood that children with disabilities are vulnerable to significantly reduced participation in play and leisure. The reasons for this included physical inaccessibility, attitudinal barriers and weak social support. The trio were passionately motivated to bring about community improvement. This led Play for All to its first challenge, the Belrose Inclusive Play Spaces. A project that took nine months to complete, it involved erecting five separate inclusive playgrounds, each playground inspired by one of the five senses in order to provide an engaging sensory experience. (Time expired)
National Security
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (13:34): Security threats facing Australia are real, but we are in a very strong position, and we are very prepared to detect and defeat them. Last month, in my home city of Melbourne, Australia experienced its eighth terrorist attack, but it went virtually unnoticed. Momena Shoma, who was already serving a lengthy prison term for terrorism, allegedly attacked another female inmate. Recently, a man in Queensland was arrested and charged with one count of acts done in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act. At the same time, ASIO has told us that the threat of right-wing extremism is growing and now composes between 30 and 40 per cent of ASIO's case load. I'm told that ASIO is seeing young Australians—some as young as 14—being radicalised online.
As serious as these threats are, I'm confident that our security and law enforcement agencies are well placed to respond to them. There have been multiple arrests, convictions and disruptions this year alone, but we cannot be complacent. The terrorism threat is at 'probable', which means a terrorist event is likely. That means our agencies believe that even now there are those in our country who wish to do us harm. The intended perpetrators of attacks, driven by these twisted ideologies, know that the Christmas and new year period is a special time of year, so they would see an attack as a significant disruption and a damager of morale. We must all remain vigilant and aware without being alarmed, fortified by the knowledge that our security and intelligence agencies are working around the clock to see us safe.
Together, in this most challenging year, we have seen off the worst of the COVID pandemic. Together, we will also meet and defeat those— (Time expired)
Epping Scouts
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:34): I've spoken in this chamber before about the Epping Scouts. Years ago, they came to me seeking help to renew their boatshed in Meadowbank. Sitting next to the ferry's wharf, the site has been utilised by Scouts from the local area as well as provided a jetty and boat ramp for community use. Unfortunately, it was suffering from overcrowding and, more critically, concrete cancer. Epping Scouts sought government help, and thankfully we were able to provide it: a substantial grant that allowed them to commence building at the beginning of the year.
This would not have been a simple task under normal circumstances—building right on the foreshore and managing tides and ferries amid precious mangroves. It would make this normally quite difficult, but when demolition of the old shed started in January, no-one could have foreseen the added difficulties 2020 was going to throw their way. So I was very proud to visit the site on 21 November to officially open the new building with my friend and state colleague Victor Dominello MP. It's a fantastic facility which will finally fit the growing needs of the Scouts and serve the movement and community at large for years to come. I was particularly delighted to see that the shed is named after local legend Peter Buckley, the brains behind the new shed and the heart behind the local Scouts. Congratulations to Peter, Alan and everyone connected to this most worthwhile project.
Shipping
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:39): Why does this government hate Australian seafarers so much? Amongst the many failures of this government is the near complete dismantling of our country's maritime fleet. It beggars belief that the world's largest island nation has one of the world's smallest fleets, with the Liberals going out of their way to smash Aussie shipping and destroy the jobs that go with it.
You can imagine my disgust when I learned that the MPV Everest, a temporary replacement for the Aurora Australis, the pride of our nation's Antarctic scientific expedition, will dock in Tasmania on 11 December with an entirely foreign crew and will then sail on to Antarctica without one Australian on board. This government has taken outsourcing to such an extreme that even an Australian mission to Australia's Antarctic Territory does not require an Australian crew. Experienced seafarers in my electorate applied to join the vessel on its pending visit to Antarctica but were knocked back. And they weren't the only ones. No Australian seafarer was offered a place—not one. Not even the experienced crew of the Aurora Australiswere offered a berth. How dumb is that! The federal government must get on the phone to the Australian Antarctic Division and insist that this vessel, which is part of an Australian mission, be crewed by an experienced Australian crew. The seafarers of Australia have every right to expect better from a government that is supposed to act in the best interests of Australians. Aussie missions need Aussie crews.
Menzies Electorate: School Grants
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:40): A number of local school projects in my electorate of Menzies have now been completed with Commonwealth grants. These include air-conditioning for four classrooms at Eltham College; new shade structures at Donvale Christian College; a classroom refurbishment to create a recording studio at Donburn Primary School; a state-of-the-art hearing augmentation system at Eltham North Primary School; a fitness circuit at Kangaroo Ground Primary School; and notebooks purchased for Marcellin College. I was pleased to support these grant applications and I am pleased to now see them completed and come to fruition.
This has obviously been a very difficult year for schools not just in my electorate but throughout Victoria. I would like to congratulate all those students, and their parents, who have coped with the difficulties of this year. In particular, I extend my congratulations to all the teachers, in government schools and in non-government schools, not just in Menzies but particularly in Menzies, for the increased work they have had to undertake this year. I know this from personal experience, because one of my daughters is a teacher at a local school in my electorate. I have seen firsthand the extra efforts that have had to be made because of the COVID-19 pandemic and I would like to congratulate all the teachers involved.
Warringah Electorate: Youth Ambassadors Program
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (13:42): Young leaders are the voice of the next generation who will bring forward change and growth. I welcome schools back to parliament for their visits. I recently had the pleasure of meeting with the school captains of every high school in the Warringah electorate, who are the second cohort of the Warringah youth ambassadors. I started the Warringah Youth Ambassadors program last year to hear firsthand how I can best advocate for and represent the young people of Warringah. I was so impressed by their honesty and passion. They want us to know what issues matter to them, their schools and their families. Issues that resonated across the groups included the environment; creating a better sense of community and connection; sexuality and gender diversity; and access to mental health resources.
Mental health is an issue that is not going away. ABS data shows that in 2019 more than one-third of the deaths of people aged 15 to 24 in New South Wales were due to suicide. Of those 133 who died, 101 were males and 32 were females. The warnings are there for mental health advocates that the numbers could increase. Communicating with the younger generation of my electorate is a key aspect of ensuring everyone in the community feel supported and encouraged. Thank you to those young leaders who attended. I will continue to work with you as my youth ambassadors to listen to your issues and bring your concerns to parliament. I urge the youth around Australia to continue reaching out and working with each other.
Victoria: Renewable Energy
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (13:43): Just last week the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, announced our government's support for an incredibly important trial on energy microgrids in my home state of Victoria. The project is a distributed energy resources marketplace trial which will enable households and businesses to buy and sell electricity and grid services through the wholesale energy market. The trial, by Project Edge, will create a real-life marketplace that will see businesses and residents able to essentially buy and sell the sunshine they capture on their rooftops. This is the way of the future, and it is something all Australian should care about. The trial will initially involve 50 houses and scale up to around 1,000 commercial, residential and industry electricity customers. This will help reduce electricity costs and manage challenges associated with a decentralised grid. Locally, in my electorate of Higgins, I was proud to support St John's Church in Toorak and the Malvern Bowling Club, who received an Energy Efficient Communities grant to help with energy saving projects like the installation of solar panels on their buildings. These panels will result in approximately 17.8 megawatt hours of carbon-free electricity each year, offsetting about 14 tonnes of emissions annually. How fantastic that these organisations can save on their bills, help lower emissions to help protect the future of the planet and, hopefully, one day be able to buy and sell our country's sunshine asset into the market place.
Workplace Relations
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (13:45): I rise to speak about the need for Australia to have industrial manslaughter laws right across the country. I was reminded of the importance of this—it was a policy we took to the last election—when I had the opportunity to meet with Linda Ralls. This will be the 10th Christmas that she and her daughter Bobbi won't have Craig at the table. Craig was a qualified boilermaker working as a maintenance fitter and he was killed at work in 2011.
Families don't recover from these losses. Last year, 183 Australians were killed at their workplace—that's an increase of 37 deaths since 2018. It's the first increase since 2007—that's too many funerals, too many lost friends and too many empty chairs at the Christmas table. Every adult should have the right to return home as safely as they went to work, and every child should have the right to see mum and dad come home into the driveway at the end of their shift.
It is now time to have these industrial manslaughter laws. It has been a long journey but now various state and territory jurisdictions have these laws in place. The government has had the Boland review for two years. The review has called for the harmonisation of industrial manslaughter laws. Once upon a time, the theory was that the only way a crime could be committed is if you had intent and act combined, but when you are so recklessly indifferent to the safety of your workers, that qualifies as a crime in my book.
Flinders Island Olives
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (13:47): The power of community has shone through in many different and wonderful ways in 2020 and, in a year so many would like to forget, it's important to highlight the good. For anyone who has been fortunate enough to visit the majestic Flinders Island—a tiny but mighty island off the coast of Tasmania and situated in my electorate of Bass—you feel the strong sense of community immediately after arriving. It's this community which will rallied behind Flinders Island Olives to support its own Jude Cazaly and harvested this year's crop when the pandemic left Jude short of harvest workers.
Their hard work paid off and Flinders Island Olives, the only commercial olive producer on the island, was awarded a score of 91½ points out of 100 by the Australian International Olive Awards for its organic extra virgin olive oil, earning a gold medal. On top of this prestigious win, the business also took out several other trophies for Reserve Champion Medium Extra Virgin Olive Oil, Best Tasmanian Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Best Extra Virgin Olive Oil of Show Boutique Volume. If you're looking for a Christmas present for a beloved foodie, can I suggest getting your hands on one of these products. I'd like to congratulate Jude for the wonderful achievements reached this year and also the local community who rallied behind her in a time of need.
Springwood High School
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:48): I want to recognise the students of Springwood High School in the Blue Mountains in my electorate of Macquarie who are fighting for a fair go when it comes to a safe, healthy and cool environment with their 2hot2learn campaign. You might have seen them on the ABC TV's Big Weather. These were the kids sweating it out in 37.7 degree classrooms to show the impact of heat on brain function. Members of this place don't know how close they came to having the same experience, interrupted only by COVID. The producers of the show spoke with me earlier in the year, wanting to simulate the high temperatures so we could feel for ourselves how difficult it is to be clear and efficient thinkers in that sort of heat. Instead, the students—including spokespeople Ian Tjoelker and Laila Chesterman—bore the brunt of the experiment. They'd already done testing in their school when they missed out on being eligible for the NSW government's air conditioning program. They placed monitors in 16 locations around the school last summer, taking 87 days of data. Indoor temperatures peaked above 30 degrees on a third of the days, and the maximum classroom temperature was 37.7 degrees.
The students are still waiting to hear back from Dan Tehan, the Minister for Education, and COAG about what action will come as a result of their appeals. They want to see serious action on air conditioning and also serious action on climate change so future students don't have to go through this.
Curtin Electorate: International Volunteers Day
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (13:49): I occasionally hear it said that these days people are less civil than they used to be, that we care less about each other and we've lost a sense of community. Now, if you live your life solely on social media and/or permanently attached to Twitter and see some of the comments and the debased debate which frequently occurs on those forums, it's not hard to sometimes share these sentiments. But we've also been reminded this year of the empathy, the eagerness to help one another and the altruism that defines so many in our community.
Last Saturday was International Volunteers Day, and the volunteers in the Curtin community truly reflect the best of what we have in this country. I have been amazed by the organisations and the individuals who stepped up to help one another this year—the Rotary Clubs running food drives for Foodbank, the National Seniors Australia Western Suburbs branch keeping members connected through Zoom; the 430 amazing people in Curtin who volunteered through my office to do food deliveries to vulnerable constituents or drop off hand sanitiser; or the volunteer surf lifesavers who will continue their longstanding service of keeping us safe on the beach this summer.
Ninety seconds is not long enough to describe all the deeds or names of all the organisations. So, to all the volunteers in Curtin, I simply say: thank you and Merry Christmas.
COVID-19: Victoria
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (13:51): Today we start the final week in parliament for 2020, and back home Victoria marks 38 straight days since our last case of COVID-19. This pandemic isn't over, but today Victorians also enter the final phase of easing of restrictions, the COVID-safe summer. It will mean more people in bars, cafes and restaurants; larger home gatherings in time for Christmas and Hanukkah; the revival of standing service at the pub; and dancing to live music in nightclubs and at weddings.
This is a special day for Victorians. It is a victory that every Victorian owns, because we did the hard yards to eliminate the second wave. And Victorians know that we did it with no thanks to the members of this Liberal government who played politics with this pandemic and threw Victorians under the bus every step of the way; no thanks to the Morrison government who cut JobKeeper and JobSeeker by $300 a fortnight to Victorians in the middle of stage 4 lockdown; no thanks to this government who issued press release after press release saying Victoria's strategy wasn't right, it was too slow, and it wouldn't work; and no thanks to this government who criticised Victoria's contact-tracing ability when their own contribution to contact tracing was a useless app that didn't trace a single unique contact in all of Victoria. Make no mistake: Victorians succeeded in spite of this Liberal government. They are not leaders; they are just Liberals.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (13:52): The National Disability Insurance Scheme was designed on the dream of greater flexibility, better quality of life and greater opportunity to have an input into your own expenditure, where packages were delivered for people for their betterment and we stopped treating people with disabilities like children and started giving them their full potential for what they have. It is not a place for governments to decide every aspect of somebody's life. It is not a place where we do not give the greatest flexibility we can possibly give. It is not a place where, once that package is designed and handed over, the person with the disability doesn't have responsibility for it. And it's not a place where politicians, departments and support workers all of a sudden have an influence directly on the lives and aspirations of those people with a disability.
We've got to chase the dream of the dream that was and not put our own inflection and desires onto the people with disabilities. We have to give them freedom—freedom even in their package. It's no good if you've got plenty of gardening money left over but you need physiotherapy. They should all be interacting by their choice, not by the government deciding what is right and what is wrong. Give people with disabilities freedom and a chance.
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:54): I'm sure many Australians were shocked to learn that on Saturday two Germans were able to enter the country in Sydney and fly on to Melbourne without being quarantined. In fact, they weren't detected of not having entered quarantine until they were in the public area of the Melbourne Airport. Some media reports said it was a clerk at a car hire agency, others said it was a security guard. Regardless, these people were not picked up until they'd got to the public area of Melbourne Airport. They were hardly caught and detected through a failsafe within the border control system, as the Minister for Health suggested on Sunday morning. The minister went on to say:
There are multiple rings of containment within the quarantine and border system and, ultimately, these passengers have been picked up within those rings of containment.
The last time I checked, outside Melbourne Airport Terminal 3 is not quarantine or a ring of containment. What is it with this government about spinning the opposite of truth? Maybe, next term when this parliament gets together in the new year, we need a book of Morrison government antonyms to help the Australian people understand exactly what this government is saying. When they say quarantine, they actually mean outside Melbourne Airport. When they say casuals are safe and they're going to protect them, what they actually mean is they're stripping rates away. This government is nothing but spin, and it is putting the lives of Australians at risk. (Time expired)
O'Connor Electorate: Shire of Manjimup
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (13:56): I rise today to acknowledge the significant achievement by the Shire of Manjimup, which is part of the southern forest region of my electorate. This is an organisation that punches well above its weight in good times and bad, whether that be economic downturns, legislative changes, natural disasters or the current COVID-19 pandemic. To this end, the hardworking and passionate team at the Shire of Manjimup have been rewarded for their efforts by winning the inaugural Minister Coulton Award for Progressive Community Leadership.
The minister's award recognises individuals, projects, leaders and local government representatives who have displayed leadership in their communities in the face of change or challenges; demonstrated best practice collaboration, engagement and consultation with their community; and established sustainable plans and strategies and implemented them successfully. The shire led a process to design an alternative growth plan when they were faced with a decline in their regional timber industry. This plan was created with locals and embraced four of the shire's strengths, and it has overseen $150 million of new investment flow into the region through private and public infrastructure in the eight years since.
I want to recognise the incredible passion and commitment of the team at the Shire of Manjimup, including the shire president, Paul Omodei, and the CEO, Andrew Campbell. I also want to acknowledge the significant community business and community partnerships that have been forged. Together they have reinvigorated Manjimup to create a progressive regional centre, an investor's dream, an attractive tourism destination and one of the premier food and wine producing regions in Western Australia.
Veterans
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:57): We should never forget the dedication of present and past serving members of the Australian Defence Force. These people put their lives on the line in service of our country. They do what their government asks unflinchingly. The actions they take in the line of duty include things we would never really be able to fathom. It is simply unacceptable that so many of our returning veterans are taking their own lives. It is an outrage that this government will not establish a royal commission that can investigate why they are failing the veteran community. The loss of human life is intolerable. The loss of human potential is immeasurable. Why aren't we ensuring no expense is spared in the prevention of veteran suicide? We need to unveil system failures in government resourcing for veterans. We need to investigate best practice to ensure no further loss of life. We need to review the resources allocated to veteran support services to ensure that our spending is equal to the vast value and appreciation we put on their service to our nation. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that we lost 11 veterans in the last three weeks. That is 18 per cent higher than the broader population rate. It is not acceptable. They do their duty; we should do ours. (Time expired)
Keswick Island
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:59): Keswick Island residents and property owners are still being denied reasonable access to their homes by the Chinese company China Bloom that has the lease of the island. The Palaszczuk Labor government has failed to come out and back Queenslanders. The situation on Keswick Island cannot go on. Anger is building within the local community. Protests are already taking place and rightly so. This is something that has occurred on the Palaszczuk government's watch. They're allowing it to continue without consequence. I stand here again for a second week in a row and urge the Palaszczuk government to terminate the head lease by China Bloom and restore free, safe and fair access rights to Keswick Island for property owners and tourists. I've set up a website to send a message to Annastacia Palaszczuk: www.reclaimkeswick.com. This is Australia, not China. Access to our island must not be blocked by a foreign power.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Child Care
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister compared the difference for families with his government's childcare calculator and the one Labor launched today at childcarecalculator.com.au? Isn't it the case that the Prime Minister's childcare scheme punishes parents for working a fourth or fifth day?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:00): I'll ask the Minister for Education to add further to my answer. What I do know, when you make that comparison, is that if you are on a particularly high income you'll benefit greatly from the Labor Party's policy. This is providing very significant payments to those on higher incomes. What we've done, as a government, is to ensure that all Australians pay less tax. That's what we've been doing: ensuring that we put more money back into Australians' pockets. The more they earn, the more they'll be able to keep of that, whether they're on a low or a high income, because our government trusts Australians with their own money. We know that Australians have many needs.
Mr Burke interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: On direct relevance. The question was about child care.
The SPEAKER: Yes. The Prime Minister was comparing and contrasting briefly, I presume. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Indeed, I was doing more than that. I made specific reference to the calculator, where you can see that, if you're on very high incomes, you get very high subsidies. That's something the Labor Party once opposed. When we sought to make changes in the earlier days, they opposed those sorts of changes. What we have done, with our economic plan, which is overseeing the comeback of the Australian recovery, is to ensure the comeback of the Australian economy. The recovery we're seeing is putting more money back into Australians' pockets. We are enabling them to do that, whether it's to meet the very important costs of child care or the many other things that Australian families need. We trust Australians to make their own decisions with their own money, and that's why we want them to keep more of what they earn. And if that means that they need to access—
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Lingiari.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you. Whatever they need to do—working more hours—they keep more of what they earn. That is what our tax policies are designed to achieve. What I know from those opposite in the Labor Party is that they want to spend more of the money so they can take more of your money.
The SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
Mr MORRISON: Yes.
COVID-19: Economy
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (14:03): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on how the Morrison government's economic recovery plan is giving both workers and businesses the support they need to recover from the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and come back stronger?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:03): I thank the member for Reid for her question and her leadership in her local community. She knows that the comeback of the Australian economy is on. She knows it's happening in her electorate with small businesses. Just last week we were able to remind the House that some two million Australians are no longer in need of taxpayer support, income support, through the JobKeeper program—that's some 450,000 businesses. The Australian economy is coming back up 3.3 per cent in the most recent quarter. Job ads are up 13.9 per cent, rising to 145,000, which the ANZ noted was approaching pre-COVID levels. We want to see those Australians get back on the job. The comeback is underway but the recovery has a long way to go. We're looking forward to 2021, knowing that the recovery is building in momentum.
We have acted to cushion the blow in Australians' most difficult time, with programs like JobKeeper and JobSeeker being there to save livelihoods and, indeed, I suspect to save lives also. We have our recovery plan from the budget that is recovering what was lost. We are building for the future with the measures that were outlined in that budget. Lower taxes have been made law under our plan. We will return to the accelerated program for infrastructure development with the states and territories and other programs this Friday when both the national cabinet and the National Federation Reform Council meet together to ensure that those projects are rolling out all around the country. JobTrainer, the skills programs, the JobMaker hiring credit, the boosting apprenticeships scheme, the 30,000 additional places for students in universities next year—these programs are giving Australians great hope in the recovery that is occurring in our economy and they are building for the future.
We still have a long way to go. The energy plan is ensuring affordable and reliable energy for our industries. Whether it is up in the Hunter, up in Gladstone, over in Western Australia or wherever it happens to be, our plan is delivering on that need.
We are making changes in industrial relations, having worked through countless hours of sitting down together with employers and employee representatives, to ensure we can get Australians back into work. Our changes to industrial relations are about getting Australians back into work and keeping them in work. That's the fair thing to do and that's the right thing to do—to ensure we have sat down, we have listened and we have worked through the practical issues that will get more Australians back into work and keep them in work. That's what our industrial relations changes are all about. That is part of our comprehensive economic recovery plan that is leading the comeback of the Australian economy.
Child Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:06): My question is also to the Prime Minister. Why has the Prime Minister budgeted $15 million for his latest ad campaign but refused to fix the situation for Australian parents that punishes them for working a fourth or a fifth day? Why won't the Prime Minister adopt Labor's cheaper childcare plan, which will make child care more affordable for 97 per cent of families and, in addition, will boost economic growth?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:07): Labor can say what they say, but Australians will remember what they did. Under Labor, childcare fees increased by 53 per cent. I remember this, because some of us in this place have been around a bit longer than others. But the Leader of the Opposition, who has been around here longer than me, will know this: prior to the 2007 election, the Labor Party made all these great promises of how they were going to reform child care and make it work. But what was the result? A 53 per cent increase in childcare fees. That's what happens when Labor promise to solve a problem: you always end up paying more. Labor's solutions always cost you more than they will ever tell you. Not only do they rarely work; at the same time, their demonstrated incompetence in government demonstrates that whatever they try to fix they only make worse. That is their experience. That is why the Australian people got rid of them. That's why, under our government, we are taking the Australian economy forward.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: He's very lippy today, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition is very lippy today. He must be under a bit of pressure this week. I don't know what that's about. But what I know is that, every time this Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party promise to fix a problem for you, all you end up with is the bill.
COVID-19: Regional Australia
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:08): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's plan for regional Australia is supporting our economic comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:09): I thank the member for Flynn for his question. He is passionate about regional Australia and particularly Central Queensland. His Central Queensland electorate of Flynn is 132,824 square kilometres in size. It is such a provider for our nation: resources, agriculture and many other diversified business interests—too many to name here. It punches well above its weight, and it's championed in this House, and elsewhere, by the member for Flynn, who is a very shrewd businessman himself. I appreciate the acumen that he brings to this place in creating jobs, in making sure that businesses have the confidence to back themselves. As a former hotel proprietor and a former businessman who had a petroleum company that delivered petrol around the electorate, he knows full well just how important logistics are and employing people is.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I don't know why they're yelling about the fact that the member for Flynn has been a great contributor to the country. He will continue to champion those small businesses.
There are 17,200 small businesses in the electorate of Flynn that are eligible for the instant asset write-off, and I know many of them will take up that program and buy the capital equipment they need for their businesses to not just survive the global pandemic but to thrive at the back end of it. I know they will be continuing to do that and back in what is perhaps even more important than capital equipment, and that is human capital. They'll back that by employing people, by backing themselves, by employing that young apprentice, by taking advantage of the apprentice subsidy scheme.
There are employers and businesspeople like Alan Stent-Smith, who is promoting the CQ Inland Port at Yamala, 25 kilometres east of Emerald. That is a $9½ million project. We support it. The member for Flynn supports it. He knows that road and rail extension is going to take the wonderful produce of Central Queensland to port. The member for Flynn also knows, all too well, about the importance of upgrading the Capricorn and Dawson highways and the Gladstone Port access road extension. All of these projects are backed under our $110 billion record amount of infrastructure that we are investing right across the nation. Certainly, Central Queensland, which does so well for and on behalf of that maroon state and for and on behalf of our great nation, punches well above its weight, as I said. It's creating jobs, it's creating energy and it's creating opportunities. It's making investment opportunities for proprietors and for people who are going to back it well worth it. I commend the member for Flynn for his advocacy. (Time expired)
Manufacturing Industry
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:12): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. It's nearly two months since Labor announced its rail manufacturing plan to boost Australia's manufacturing industry and to create local jobs. After bullying car manufacturers out of the country, why doesn't this government have any plans to build trains in Australia?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:12): I thank the member opposite for her question. One of the things we made very clear when we announced our Modern Manufacturing Strategy was that it was very important that we put in place the right economic conditions so that every industry and all businesses around Australia could be supported. And that's exactly what we have set about doing a number of times. When we announced that strategy we made it very clear that it built on the work that was already being done by the Minister for Industrial Relations, by the minister for energy, by our work in deregulation. All of these set a very strong economic foundation that we actually needed. Industries such as train building can succeed because we as a government have built that very strong economic base.
We also made it very clear that manufacturing was a national priority for this government, and we have been prepared to put our money where our mouth is. That's why we announced a $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, and we are in the process of rolling that out now. In fact, on Friday, in the member for Groom's electorate, I announced that the second round of the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund was now open. So those industries in the key national priorities that we announced can now start applying for grant funding in the order of about $100,000 to $1 million. We announced this strategy in October, and by the start of December we were already starting to roll it out so we could support manufacturing businesses right across Australia.
That's what this government is about, because it understands just how important manufacturing is. That's why our strategy focuses on how we're going to build collaboration not just between industry and researchers but also between like-minded manufacturers working in key priorities areas and bring behind them the supply chains that they need and that we as a nation need so that we can build competition, resilience and scale. They are the foundations on which we are building manufacturing. As I said at the beginning, we are making sure that we have put in place exactly the right economic conditions that are needed so industry right across Australia, in a wide range of sectors, is able to thrive in this country.
Pensions and Benefits
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (14:15): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, Centrelink's automated data-matching system is now terrorising pensioners, this time with demonic algorithms bombarding the elderly with reams of threatening and confusing correspondence. Increasingly, I'm hearing from constituents hit with automation of income stream system reviews—for instance, an 89-year-old woman who received a letter ordering her online to provide the government with information lest her pension be cut off. Another did indeed have her payment cancelled due to an error that would have been obvious to the human eye. Prime Minister, surely the government, if not the minister, learned its lesson from the robodebt scandal? In that case, will you immediately order a halt to this latest robomonster?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:16): Last financial year, the taxpayers of this country provided almost $200 billion of support in social security and welfare payments in this country. Australia has one of the most effective and successful social safety nets, and that's something I think every member of this House should be very proud of. This year that figure will be significantly higher as a result of the significant additional supports which the government has provided to support Australians, including age pensioners and many other welfare recipients, through the course of this crisis. Indeed, there are the two additional $250 payments which are being made this year which followed the earlier $750 payments which were being made to pensioners, in particular, as well as other welfare recipients. Of that $200 billion—and that will be more this year and will continue to rise in the future—some $70 billion or more is provided through the age pension. This is an important social support in this country, and all Australians should receive the support through that system that the system is designed to provide to them.
Mr Wilkie interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: I'm coming to your issue.
The SPEAKER: The member for Clark is entitled to rise on a point of order.
Mr Wilkie: It's obviously on relevance. This question goes to the latest data-matching automated system—
The SPEAKER: I will just say to the member for Clark that I'm aware of that and there was a very specific question, but it followed about 35 seconds of preamble. The Prime Minister is entitled to give some context, which he has been doing, before he comes to the answer.
Mr MORRISON: It's important for the millions of Australian taxpayers that we run our system to ensure that the benefits that the system is designed to provide to them are provided appropriately. That includes ensuring that if their income is different and they're entitled to greater support we're aware of that as well in order to make adjustments to their payments. That is doing the right thing by taxpayers and that is doing the right thing by welfare recipients.
Services Australia require information about income streams held by payment recipients to calculate their payment entitlements under the social security income and assets test. That is their job. I'm aware of the letter you referred to. I asked for a copy of that letter recently. It provides the opportunity for people to call a number—132300—to clarify any of these issues. What I would simply ask people to do, if they have received such a letter, is to simply contact that number or go online, as the letter suggests, and provide the information they that have been asked for. That should lead to the ready resolution of those issues.
It is an important responsibility of the government to ensure that the more than $200 billion in taxpayers' funds that is provided each year, and that amount is growing each year, is administered appropriately. People should get every cent that they're entitled to. They shouldn't get a cent less and they shouldn't get a cent more. And this is a difficult topic for the department of Services Australia to administer, and they do so very professionally. I would encourage all members to encourage their constituents to comply and respond, as they've been asked to do, to assist the department with their inquiries.
Economy
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (14:20): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline to the House how the Morrison government's strong and decisive economic management will ensure that we can look forward to our economy continuing its comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:20): I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. She was a lifesaver, a small business person, an author and a musician—a wonderful range of experiences—before coming to this place. The member for Moncrieff, like those on this side of the House, understands that 2020 has been a year like no other. Australia and the world have been hit by the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression—a once-in-a-century pandemic. The equivalent of around 600 million people globally have lost their jobs. Here in Australia 1.3 million Australians either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero early on in the pandemic. In the June quarter we saw GDP fall by seven per cent, the single biggest fall that we have seen in a quarter in Australia's history.
Since that time, our economy, our nation, has been on a journey—a journey of recovery. Eighty per cent of the 1.3 million people who either lost their jobs or saw their working hours reduced to zero are now back at work and 178,000 jobs were created last month, and more than 50 per cent of those jobs went to women. Today job ads for the month of November are up by 14 per cent, following an increase of 12 per cent in October, seeing the job ad numbers come back and recovering about 90 per cent of their fall. And, as the Prime Minister said, there were two million fewer Australian workers and 450,000 fewer Australian businesses on JobKeeper in October compared to September.
We've seen in 12 of the last 13 weeks consumer confidence increase. We've seen Australia's AAA credit rating being reaffirmed and we saw in the national accounts for the quarter of September a 3.3 per cent increase, the single largest increase in September quarterly growth since 1976. That is the comeback that we are seeing right across the country.
These numbers are more than just numbers on a page. They are human lives. I had the opportunity in the electorate of Reid to go and visit Salvatore at Pasticceria Papa: more than 100 staff, and he used JobKeeper. But now he has graduated off JobKeeper and the customers are coming back at Five Dock in Sydney—another business that has graduated off JobKeeper. So, under the coalition the jobs are coming back.
Manufacturing
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (14:23): My question is also to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. Can the minister confirm that, of the $1.5 billion of manufacturing funds announced in the recent budget, only $43 million, or less than three per cent, will be spent this financial year? Why is the government always focused on the announcement and not the delivery?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:23): I thank the member opposite for his question. In the three minutes that I have to answer that question, I'm going to do my best to explain to those opposite how manufacturing actually works and how we're going to be running out the funding.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr Littleproud interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides! The minister for agriculture! The minister has the call.
Mrs ANDREWS: I'm happy to start with a memory jog for the Leader of the Opposition, who's talked about the car manufacturing industry. He forgets, in fact, that both Ford and Mitsubishi signalled their intention to close when Labor was last in government. But that's a little piece of history that they like to airbrush out because they don't like to admit when they've got things wrong.
Let me get back to the issue of manufacturing. As I said in my earlier answer today, we have already started getting ready to roll out the money for the second round of the Manufacturing—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister can just pause for a second. The level of interjections is far too high. I refer members to my statements last week. I'll have no hesitation in ejecting members who are interjecting.
Mrs ANDREWS: I announced on Friday, in the member for Groom's electorate, the opening of the second round of the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund. That is about $52.8 million, and we are requiring employers, businesses, to be able to put in at a ratio of about three to one, so we are supporting those businesses that are prepared to invest in themselves. That money is already starting to go out. That is part of the $1.5 billion. There are additional streams for which we are going through the road-mapping process so that we can ensure that the money is going to go to the right area so that it builds competitiveness, it builds resilience and it builds scale. The fund runs over a period of four years. The largest part, the collaboration stream, is where we're looking to bring businesses together so that we can actually build the scale that is needed. Understandably I have no intention of squandering taxpayer money and trying to rush dollars out the door. So we have set in place a proper process to make sure that industry are engaged right at the beginning and that we are working with them to develop what the priorities are within the six manufacturing areas. That money is going to roll out over a number of years. The first round of funding, for two streams—that that deals with export and that that deals with commercialising good ideas—will open in April. (Time expired)
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There are members still interjecting. I am now issuing a general warning.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Sydney probably didn't hear that, because she continues to interject. For those new members who don't know what a general warning means, it means I will eject without warning. Do you want me to say it again, because, when this happens, people are confused, as if I'm speaking in a foreign language? Okay.
COVID-19
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (14:27): My question is to the Minister for Health. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government's health response to the COVID-19 pandemic has helped shape Australia's economic comeback?
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 Boothby, who has been a great advocate for the conversion and rehabilitation of the Repat hospital and the Commonwealth investment in the creation of a brain and spinal unit to help people suffering from some of the most devastating injuries and conditions imaginable.
During the course of this year, we've focused, of course, not just on chronic conditions and injuries but on COVID-19. As at today, we know that there are over 67 million cases worldwide and well above 1½ million lives have been lost, agonisingly. We compare that with the fortunate situation of Australia. The advice I have from the National Incident Centre is that there are no cases of community transmission, again, in Australia today. In the last week, almost 99 per cent of cases have arrived from overseas and been contained and detected within quarantine, and there has been one case from within the community in Australia. In particular, there are no Australians in ICU or on ventilation, on the latest advice that I have. We remember when, in February, March and April, this nation witnessed the tragedy and the horror in Italy, in France, in Spain and in New York, where there was a struggle for ventilation. Even now we see systems under strain around the world, both in the developed and developing worlds.
As part of that, we prepared throughout that period to make sure that Australia not only flattened the curve with our containment to protect lives here but that we built our capacity to make sure we were never in the same situation as that faced by some other countries. I recently had the pleasure of visiting, with the member for Mitchell, ResMed. ResMed is a great Australian company. Their premises in Sydney sees over 1½ thousand workers on site. They switched their production, moving from one shift to three shifts. They worked around the clock, building ventilators: 7,000 ventilators to make sure that Australia had the capacity where, if we faced the worst of all possible outcomes, we were covered.
This was something that the Prime Minister was insistent upon in February and March, to say that we would never face what other countries had. And so we fought as a country to contain but also build that capacity, and we have done that. That's something, as we look back upon this year, for which we must be thankful and grateful as a nation—that our Australian people have achieved this. This is their achievement, and we acknowledge them and thank them. This is what has underpinned the economic revival and the economic comeback: that central health achievement of the nation. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Australians Overseas
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): My question is to the Prime Minister. In September, the Prime Minister announced he would have all stranded Australians home by Christmas. How many stranded Australians will be overseas on Christmas Day because of his refusal to act on the recommendations of the Halton review and establish national quarantine facilities, like Learmonth, instead of just blaming the states? Rather than spending $15 million on his comeback advertising campaign, why is he not doing more to help Australians come back home?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:31): This is serious issue, and it is one which the government has been giving serious attention to. But the question posed by the member opposite demonstrates, once again, that Labor and the truth have a very unhappy relationship.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: On about 18 September we made a commitment. At that time there were 26,200 people who were registered overseas, and that was our target. That was our target: we were very clear about that. And 43,800 Australians have come home since that time. We've worked together with the states and territories, in particular, not only to establish an expanded quarantine capability with the Northern Territory government and with federal support in the Northern Territory but to do the same thing in Tasmania. In addition to that, just recently 13 commercial flights have been facilitated by the government since 23 October. There have been some 77 government facilitated flights which have brought home directly—specifically outside the commercial arrangements—some 32,100 Australians.
Our government has been acting on the calls to get Australians home. Back in March we said very clearly that we would advise against Australians going overseas and that we would encourage those who were overseas to return home at the earliest opportunity. Right now we have some 39,000 or thereabouts still registered to come back. That is higher than the figure that we had on 18 September. But the Australian government has facilitated flights. We have provided tens of millions in support to those who are stranded overseas on everything from cash assistance to accommodation support, to give them the support they need wherever they are. Services Australia is contacting all of those Australians to ensure that we have the most up-to-date information about their needs to come home.
But it is an appalling misrepresentation by the Labor Party to suggest that about the government, when we said that 26,200 people had to come home and we've beaten that and got 33,800 home, in direct response to the efforts that we put in place. They can haggle all they like and they can chip away, as they're seeking to do; they're a very grumpy lot over there today. Our government will leave them to their grumpiness; we will get on with the job of getting Australians home and we'll get on with the job of recovering the Australian economy and getting Australians back into jobs. Not the politics of negativity, rather, the economics of recovery, will be our focus.
COVID-19: Economy
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:34): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison government is ensuring that businesses and employers have the certainty and security they need to help employ more Australians and drive our economic comeback as we recover from the COVID-19 recession?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:35): I thank the member for his question, for his previous service for this country and for his great interest in this area. Perhaps the area of greatest uncertainty in the Australian employment market is with respect to casuals. During the COVID recession the first 500,000 jobs of 860,000 lost were casuals. So of the first 860,000 jobs lost there were 500 ,000 jobs lost. We need to regrow jobs everywhere, of course—in permanent part-time, permanent full-time—but we owe a particular obligation to have ideas that regrow jobs for casual employment in Australia.
As well as COVID-19, unfortunately, there has been a perfect storm of three structural problems in the casual employment market that need fixing. The first is that, inexplicably, there was never a definition of what a 'casual employee' is inserted into the Fair Work Act. What that means now is that, since a recent decision in a matter called Rossato on 20 May 2020, no-one can say with any certainty, going back six years, whether a person was definitively employed as a casual. Even if that's what the person wanted and even if that's what the employer wanted no-one can say whether that's what's actually occurred. And no-one can say going forward whether or not someone is actually being engaged now as a casual. Because of that confusion, the second problem that has emerged is that there's potentially a very large ability to claim double payments of business, including small businesses. Someone could potentially make a claim for back paid leave going back six years, even though at the time they were paid loadings meant to compensate for the fact that they weren't attracting leave or accruing leave in their job. The third problem is that there is no strong, consistent, universal, fair pathway for people to convert from casual employment to permanent employment, whether that be part-time or full-time permanent.
The bill that we will introduce this week will do four very important things. As well as ending that confusion, it does four things of critical importance for employees. It places a much stronger obligation on employers to offer conversion to employees after six months of regular work. It reduces the period of regular employment required to trigger that conversion from 12 months to six months. It creates an ongoing right after that offer of conversion that employers must make, so that every six months after that offer the request can be made and it can't be unreasonably refused. Further, it extends the scope of casual conversion well beyond the areas where it presently applies. We can fix this problem of confusion that is creating a barrier to employment. At the same time, for the first time, we can have a strong, consistent pathway from casual employment to permanent employment—if that's what people want to do, and they can make that decision for themselves.
Workplace Relations
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:38): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that no worker will be worse off as a result of his industrial relations changes?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:38): What we're focused on is getting Australians back into jobs. If you're a worker who is not in a job, you're worse off. Our plan is to get workers who are not in jobs back into jobs. Our plan is to work with employers and employees to make sure we're getting more Australians back in those jobs.
The difference between the Labor Party and the Liberals and the Nationals is that we see the workplace as a place of co-operation, not conflict. We do not see the future of getting Australians back into jobs as seeing adversarial conflict based issues in the workplace. The package of measures that the Minister for Industrial Relations has outlined is all designed to deal with the practical issues that are preventing people getting back into jobs. There is no prouder day for a small business owner than when they create a job and put someone into a job. That's how you make Australians better off—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Thanks, Mr Speaker. The question can't have been clearer. There was zero rhetoric in it. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that no worker will be worse off as a result of his industrial relations changes? Just say yes or no.
The SPEAKER: That's exactly the point I was going to make. The question—and you just said it yourself—invited a yes or no answer. Practice makes it clear that you can't be compelled to give a yes or no answer. It's been well documented, and it's been well documented by me several times. So the problem—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: There are some short memories in terms of interjectors. A question like that leaves a lot of flexibility, because it really is asking for the government's approach. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Our industrial relations changes are about making Australian workers better off. Our changes are about making working Australians better off by getting them in jobs and keeping them in jobs, by understanding that a job is created by a business. Eight out of 10 jobs in this country are in private businesses. They don't exist unless those mum and dad businesses are out there employing someone. I've gone around this country speaking to people, digitally or otherwise. When JobKeeper came in, when Australian business owners have talked to me about JobKeeper, they haven't said, 'Thank you for JobKeeper; it saved my business.' What they've said to me is, 'Thank you for JobKeeper, because it kept my employees in jobs.' Those businesses care deeply about the jobs of Australians. What we are doing through these changes is equipping these businesses to employ more Australians, to put more of them back in work, to make more of them better off—by ensuring they have the confidence to go and do so in a recovering economy. The path that the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to go down today is the old path of conflict. We're about solutions, not picking fights.
JobMaker Program
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (14:42): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's JobMaker skills plan will aid Australia's economic comeback by creating more opportunities for Australians through retraining and upskilling?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (14:43): I thank the member for Berowra for his question. In my role as minister, I am out all the time speaking to many businesses in a whole range of industry sectors. Nearly all of them say they are so relieved that this government is putting skills and skills development at the centre of our economic agenda. Just the other week, at a forum that was hosted by the member for Berowra, I was speaking to a number of manufacturers as well as across a wider range of industry. Skills investment was one of the things that was raised consistently at that meeting. They know, like we know, that without a skilled workforce we are not going to be able to capitalise on the opportunities that are available to us as we come back from COVID-19 and we won't be as strong as we need to be.
But it wasn't the COVID pandemic that started us looking at VET reform. That work was underway well before COVID-19. That's why we have been able to invest about $7 billion in the vocational education sector this year alone. We will concentrate on making sure that we have skilled workers who, importantly, are job ready. That's what many businesses are asking for. They want their students, their future employees, to come through the vocational education and skills sector with their training and be ready to start work as soon as they possibly can, and we are very committed to making the necessary investments to make sure that happens. We are prepared to put money where it is most desperately needed, and vocational education and skills is an area that it has been so important for us to invest in, because we got to inherit the Labor legacy which, quite frankly, was not a good legacy. It was a particularly poor legacy that we were left and it has taken us a number of years to get vocational education and training back on track.
What I can say is that this government had a tremendous task when we took government, because we had to remedy all of the mistakes, all of the errors, that Labor had made when they were last in government. And what I can say is that when the vocational education and skills sector needed money, Labor cut it—cut after cut after cut. (Time expired)
Workplace Relations
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations: Is the minister aware of a recent report that shows blueberry workers in New South Wales are being paid as little as $3 an hour? Why is the government congratulating itself on using marketing slogans rather than doing anything to help exploited workers like this?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:46): I am aware of that report. That shouldn't happen. It's disgraceful. This government has done more on the compliance front, both legislatively and as a matter of practice, than any recent government in this country's history. That absolutely should not happen. When you ask us what further there can be done to ensure that sort of compliance, it is interesting that, of the five areas we looked at, in 150 hours worth of working groups, one of those areas was compliance. And the bill that we will introduce to parliament will, for the first time ever, create in this country at a Commonwealth level an offence of wage theft—for the first time ever. It will significantly increase civil penalties on top of the tenfold increase that we had already instituted. It will also have new principles whereby the civil penalty can be either/or: either the 50 per cent increase or a new concept, which is called 'benefit gained'. So you can actually look at the amount of underpayment that has occurred from the employer and you can fine them, effectively, either two or three times that underpayment. They're the sorts of things—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr PORTER: I'll take the interjection. First, you've got to catch them. It's the Fair Work Ombudsman that did that. You underfunded them, and we increased the funding of them. So that's how you catch them. You have strong laws, which we're introducing this week, and you have a strong regulator, which we have ensured has occurred. Those sorts of situations shouldn't occur. They are regulated and policed very heavily by this government. This government has increased the penalties and will further increase the penalties, including creating the criminal penalty of wage theft, and including and introducing a whole new type of civil penalty that links the charge or fine to the amount of the underpayment, which we believe is the way in which you can ensure that the signals are right so that that sort of stuff which should never happen does not happen.
COVID-19: Energy
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government's plan for affordable and reliable energy will help secure jobs and drive our economic comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:49): I thank the member for Ryan for his question. I've been privileged to spend time with him in this electorate, with small businesses, and I've seen firsthand his passionate advocacy for those businesses. He understands the importance of affordable, reliable energy in the comeback from the pandemic for businesses like those. He also knows we've laid out a comprehensive plan for affordable reliable energy in this country, making sure we have that energy without imposing new costs on the Australian economy, on Australian businesses. That plan, as laid out in the budget, will deliver upwards of 130,000 jobs. It is part of a comprehensive plan that is working. We've now seen wholesale electricity prices falling for 14 months in a row. They are at their lowest levels for many years. And we know that wholesale prices make up the vast majority of bill for energy-intensive manufacturing businesses and other energy-intensive businesses and up to half the bill for households and small businesses.
We know there is more to do. Central to our energy plan is making sure we have access to affordable, reliable gas in this country as we come back from COVID-19. That will keep the lights on, drive down prices and create jobs. We're backing the Australian gas industry to make sure Australian gas is working for all Australians, backing the 850,000 people in this country who work in manufacturing, backing the farmers who rely on gas for their fertiliser and for energy and for irrigation, and backing the LNG exporters. We've built the largest LNG export industry in the world, and we're taking action to make sure Australian gas is delivered to the right place at the right time for the right price. That means unlocking supply, investing in efficient infrastructure and empowering customers.
We're also investing in new energy technologies: $1.9 billion of extra investment in the budget, a total now, across all parts of the economy in the coming years, of $70 billion of investment in emerging energy technologies. That includes things like the re-funding of ARENA. It is now more important than ever that we have that affordable, reliable energy as we bring down our emissions—more jobs, lower prices, lower emissions—as we strengthen our economy and come back from COVID-19.
Workplace Relations
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (14:51): My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Last week when I asked for the minister to help the Coles workers in my electorate who have been locked out of their workplace for three months the minister asked for further information, which I provided immediately. Minister, I've still heard nothing back. Why won't the government help these workers, who have no income as they approach Christmas? Surely these workers and their families deserve a better Christmas present than being locked out of their jobs?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:52): I thank the member both for his original question and for that further question. I must say that the situation, upon further investigation, is more complicated than the member's question alerts the House to it being. It has a deep history. As I understand the situation—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
Mr PORTER: that particular area of operation—
Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Kingsford-Smith will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Kingsford Smith then left the chamber.
Mr PORTER: That particular operational centre has been scheduled to close for some time. So, describing people as being 'locked out' of it is—
The SPEAKER: The member for Macarthur on a point of order?
Dr Freelander: Yes, on relevance. It's well known that that centre isn't due to close until 2023—in three years time.
The SPEAKER: The member for Macarthur cannot use the opportunity of a point of order to add additional information. He had the opportunity for that in the 30 seconds available for the question.
Mr PORTER: I think that's precisely the point, member: there is a scheduled closure of that operational centre. Indeed, the locking out is not about the closure; the issue is around a dispute of pay, and there are percentage differences in that dispute. That dispute has to be resolved through its normal channels, in the usual way set up in the Fair Work Act and through the Fair Work Commission, which is happening. Some consider that the offer is reasonable and others consider that it is not, but that is something that has to be resolved in the usual way.
COVID-19: Economy
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (14:54): My question is to the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. Will the minister please outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government's efforts to support new technologies and markets for the resources industry will drive jobs in regional Queensland and support our economic comeback from the COVID-19 recession?
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (14:54): I thank the member for Dawson for his question. There are those who thought the member for Dawson wouldn't be here after the election, but, in a comeback worthy of the Australian economy, here he is. That is because he stands for regional jobs—manufacturing jobs, resources jobs, agricultural jobs. The member for Dawson knows how to deliver jobs in his electorate.
I visited Mainetec, in the member for Dawson's electorate. They design and manufacture buckets, would you believe, for the resources sector. Why is that important in terms of technology? If they improve efficiency for buckets for the resources sector, it means they can deliver Australia's resources to the world more efficiently. No matter whether it's iron ore, coal, gold—all the things we're well known for—there continues to be opportunities for the resources sector in our traditional sectors, our export sectors, our manufacturing sectors and our downstream processing sectors—none more so than in critical minerals. We know the critical minerals sector is one where we have a lot of advantages. In fact, we have the world's largest resources of lithium, cobalt, tungsten and titanium.
We know the member for Fairfax is out fighting for the Olympics, but the gold medal for us in critical minerals goes to lithium, tantalum and titanium; we have a silver for rare earths and a bronze for cobalt and manganese. And we'll be looking to ensure there are opportunities for downstream processing of critical minerals. I note the contributions from the minister for industry, because the Manufacturing Modernisation Fund will provide those opportunities for more manufacturing jobs in Australia, in regional Australia and in the member for Dawson's electorate, because we know that regional Australia will help deliver us out of the COVID pandemic as we continue to build the economy.
Ms Butler interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith will leave under standing order 94(a).
The member for Griffith then left the chamber.
Mr PITT: Whether it's a fighter plane or an iPhone, critical minerals are critical to the development of these industries. There is an opportunity for us; there is an opportunity for Australians; there is an opportunity for jobs. So we will continue to look for those opportunities in regional Australia; we'll continue to look for those opportunities in downstream processing, particularly of critical minerals, and in hydrogen. We've heard the minister for energy and, of course, the minister for industry talk about the opportunities for hydrogen. It is an untapped jackpot for the Australian economy. We're working closely with the Victorian government and the Japanese government, in partnership, on the Hydrogen Energy Supply Chain project. I'm sure you know this, Mr Speaker, but I can inform the House as well—what are they using for feedstock? It's brown coal. Brown coal in Victoria—
The SPEAKER: It doesn't matter whether I know it or not. Just keep moving.
Mr PITT: We'll continue to inform the House: brown coal, because it's cheap, because it's available. It's in Victoria; it provides opportunities for the development of the hydrogen projects for exports around the world. So we'll stick with traditional industries, we'll build new technologies and we'll deliver more jobs—we'll deliver them into regional Australia and the member for Dawson's electorate. Long may it be so. (Time expired)
Aviation Industry
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (14:57): My question is to the minister for transport. Last week, 2,000 Qantas workers were made redundant when their jobs were outsourced. One of these Qantas workers, Sean from Canberra airport, asked:
How do I explain to my three girls that it is not whether you do a good job or not, it is just that they can bring someone else in and do it for cheaper than you?
Why is the Morrison government standing by as thousands of aviation workers lose their jobs and are pushed into insecure work?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:58): I thank the member for Fenner for his question. Sustaining Australia's aviation sector is something we have absolutely got behind. Aviation was hit first and hit hardest—it is a global pandemic. As I said last week to the House, there are many aviation companies—many airlines—which have closed, which are now not flying. We know that jobs on the ground rely on planes being in the air. We've done everything humanly possible to make sure that workers such as Sean have a job into the future. If Sean has been laid off, then we hope that Sean is able to return to the aviation sector at some point in the future.
Certainly the aviation industry is nowhere near back to where it was pre-COVID. In fact, the CEO of Qantas, Alan Joyce, says that, leading up to Christmas, it will be back to 60 per cent. That is actually ahead of where they thought they would be just a few months ago. I spoke to the new Virgin CEO, Jayne Hrdlicka, last week. She hopes that Virgin will be back domestically to somewhere around 60 per cent by late January or early February. These are tough times for the aviation sector and certainly for the workers in it. That's why we provided $2.7 billion of assistance, and we've done it on a sector-wide basis.
We've done it with the Regional Airline Network Support scheme, and that has provided support to more than three dozen or thereabouts communities which would otherwise not have seen a plane throughout the global pandemic. They would have been left very much high and dry when it came to receiving personal protective equipment, face masks, respiratory devices and, perhaps, most importantly, frontline medical personnel. We provided that RANS assistance and then we extended it.
Similarly with the Domestic Aviation Network Support program: we made sure that there was connectivity between capital cities and connectivity between key regional hubs and metropolitan airports to ensure that we kept people going around the country as best we could, given the fact that border restrictions were put in place. But we're doing everything we can to ensure, through JobKeeper, that the aviation sector has the support it needs, and we will go on making sure that the aviation sector has support.
We've also got, of course—and it closed a couple of Fridays ago—an aviation plan to look at five years hence, to make sure that we've got the right programs and the right projects in place for aviation support. That comes to remote airstrips and regional airport upgrades. We're doing it, we're supporting the aviation industry and we're supporting the airlines that fly people around this country.
Agriculture Industry
Mr PASIN (Barker) (15:01): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison-McCormack government has supported our agricultural sector through recent natural disasters and the COVID-19 recession?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (15:01): I thank the member for his question. Over the last number of years, Australian agriculture has faced many headwinds, and this government has stood shoulder to shoulder with it, whether it be the more than $10 billion we've committed for drought support—a drought which has gone on in parts of this country for over eight years—or the more than $3.3 billion committed after the north-west Queensland floods or the more than $2 billion in support through the bushfires.
Australian agriculture has been able to start to repay that support to the Australian taxpayer. Today, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics has revised its outlook for agricultural output for this year. It's lifting it from $60 billion to $65 billion. That's an enormous result, considering what agriculture and regional Australia has faced. It has been predicated off a bumper winter crop, but we continue to need more rain to ensure we rebuild our national herd and to help agriculture reach its $100 billion goal by 2030. That's why, in the budget, we're looking to the future—not just at supporting the sector through natural disasters and trying times but looking to the future with our Ag 2030 plan with cold, hard cash.
It's a seven-pillar plan, with over $300 million set aside to not only put boots on the ground in high commissions and embassies around the world but also put more scientists here, to help in support and getting through those technical barriers to get us quicker market access. We're streamlining our market platforms to make them single-touch so that our farmers can do it quicker and simpler. And there's over $874 million in biosecurity support. We're putting that out there to protect brand Australia, up from $630 million in the 2014-15 budget—a significant investment in supporting biosecurity and protecting brand Australia.
Also, through our stewardship programs we're making sure that farmers are rewarded for the stewardship of our land and are looking for new ways to do that—even with the energy minister in trying to measure soil carbon, which would be a game changer. Or there's the $1.5 billion in modernising manufacturing—understanding the opportunity of enriching our supply chains through greater exports, producing and processing more here in Australia. And there's also protecting and looking at our agricultural inputs.
We're also looking at infrastructure. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced more money—significant cash—for building more dams and plumbing the nation. It's about more water—the story of agriculture is to just add water. We're also looking to modernise in our innovation systems: there's $86 million for eight new innovation hubs to support cutting-edge research and development to help our farmers adopt the best technology and science in the world to produce even more.
But it's also about the next generation. We've had generations of young people leave regional and rural Australia, but now the time has come to bring them back, and that's through education—reducing the cost of agricultural courses by 59 per cent. There is $250 million for reduced short courses to bring our young people home and drive agriculture to $100 billion by 2030.
Workplace Relations
Ms CATHERINE KING ( Ballarat ) ( 15:04 ): My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Since March the government has allowed Virgin to fall into administration, costing 3,000 jobs; denied JobKeeper to 5,000 dnata workers and workers at council owned airports; and sat back while Qantas has sacked 8½ thousand workers. What more will it take for the government to finally come up with a plan for aviation?
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (15:05): As I said in my previous answer, this is a global pandemic and it has hit the aviation sector, not just here in Australia but right across the world, extremely hard. Some airline companies are now no longer flying, and there's the prospect that they will never fly again. Fortunately in Australia we now have a situation with two viable airlines flying, and they are Virgin and Qantas.
The member who asked the question asked about Virgin. Virgin came into the global pandemic saddled with around $5 billion of debt, so they were always going to need to restructure and refinance. But, thanks to the assistance that we've provided, as well as good management and a situation where we gave them every confidence and optimism and opportunity to look to the future, they were able to recapitalise and restructure. We thank Bain Capital and we look to them into the future, because they have made a lifeline there for the company which has kept them flying. We thank Paul Scurrah for his management. We thank Jayne Hrdlicka for having the optimism to take that company forward. Just last week I had a very good meeting with her. She sees that there are blue skies and tailwinds ahead for the company. We want to see Virgin in the air and we want to see them taking on board more routes and more workers, and we will work closely with them to ensure that that happens.
The shadow minister for transport mentioned Qantas, and yes, it is tough for those Qantas workers who have been laid off. But the situation is such that other businesses, too, have laid off workers. Fortunately, thanks to the JobKeeper assistance that we've provided, that has provided connectivity with workers. The assistance that we've provided across all industries, across all sectors, has helped businesses re-engage, and so many workers who were laid off earlier in the year are now getting their jobs back and returning to the workforce. Sometimes it's with the companies they worked for previously and sometimes it's in a new endeavour. With the apprenticeships, skills programs and subsidies we're putting in place, we're making sure that some people can reskill and look to the future.
The shadow minister also mentioned dnata. Well, it is a foreign owned company, owned by Emirates and—
Mr Burke: But the workers are Australian!
Mr McCORMACK: I appreciate that. I can hear you loud and clear right from here, thanks. You could have just said it; you didn't need to yell it at me. We have certainly done things for Australian workers right across the board, and we'll go on doing things right across the board. But a message to the member for Watson: it is a global pandemic and these are tough times, and I'd thank you to be aware that we're acting in a responsible way. (Time expired)
Australian Defence Force
Mr PEARCE (Braddon) (15:08): My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Defence. Will the minister please update the House on how the Morrison government is securing the future of our nation by strengthening the future capability of the Australian Defence Force?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (15:08): I thank the honourable member for his question and thank him for his service to our country in uniform and for being a great champion for Tasmania. Obviously in the post-COVID world we see a situation where our country will face more and more complex strategic challenges, and Australia needs to make sure we can harness our future opportunities. Importantly, we also need to mitigate the risks and to deter potential future threats. The federal government has been able to put significant investment into our Defence Force, not only to provide support to our men and women who wear the uniform but, importantly, to make sure they receive the right kit and that we make the right investment into a number of assets that will provide support to our defence personnel.
The 2020 Defence Strategic Update and the 2020 Force Structure Plan are key parts of the government's national security agenda, and we are backing our armed forces by investing $270 billion into defence capability over the next decade and restoring defence funding to over two per cent of GDP. So this not only provides a future of certainty for our country where we can provide assurances to Australians about making them as safe as possible but it also puts a significant amount of money into local businesses right across the country. So, when people look forward over the next 12 months, over the next 12 years, they know that if they're working in a small manufacturing business in an outer metropolitan area somewhere they can be provided with the assurances they need to make the extra employment arrangements that they might need to fulfil their arrangements in their contract with Defence. We're also building our naval vessels—70 vessels being built here in Australia.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: I note the interjection there: not one was contracted under Labor when they were in power, and yet this government has been able to support 15,000 companies and 70,000 Australian workers who are benefiting from the government's investments in Defence. We're making sure that those numbers are growing. We're managing the economy effectively and, if we do that, we can invest further into our defence forces. We can invest more into our national security and we can make sure that we can keep Australians safe. The Morrison government is absolutely committed to providing our ADF personnel the resources and the tools they need to protect our nation into the near future and the longer term.
COVID 19: Australians Overseas
Mr MARLES (Corio—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:11): My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer to the Prime Minister's September announcement when he promised to bring all stranded Australians home by Christmas. Why have Tony Abbott and Alexander Downer been able to leave and re-enter Australia multiple times this year when there are thousands of vulnerable stranded Australians who haven't been able to get home once?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:11): I thank the member for his question and wonder why he'd want to bring personalities into this, given that Mr Rudd has done the same thing. It surprises me. I think this reflects the politics of negativity that has overtaken the opposition. At a time when the country is dealing with one of the biggest crises we've ever seen, we will focus on the economics of recovery while those opposite are stranded in the politics of negativity that they bring into this place on a daily basis.
I can inform the member—
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms Kearney interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will pause for a second. The member for Cooper will leave under 94(a). Anyone that wishes to follow her will keep interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.
The member for Cooper then left the chamber.
Mr MORRISON: Some 29,416 Australians have had travel exemption decisions approved by Border Force. As I reminded him earlier and even since that day in September, some 43,800 Australians have returned—that is since September when there were some 26,200 who were registered at that time. So, we continue to bring Australians home. And those we have allowed and given exemption decisions to approve their travel have been for compassionate and compelling reasons; critical skills, medical; critical skills, other; the national interest, including diplomatic; urgent medical treatment; and transit approvals. We have been approving and supporting Australians moving out of this country and into this country as those needs have determined and those decisions have been independently made by the Border Force commissioner. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition wants to pick an argument with the Border Force commissioner about how he is independently exercising those decisions and attack the integrity of the commissioner, he should get up and do it and not be doing it in the cowardly way he is doing it in this place.
Domestic and Family Violence
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (15:14): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is working with the states and territories through the Fourth Action Plan of the National Action Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children to ensure a coordinated approach to addressing the important issue of women's safety?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (15:14): I thank the member for Robertson for her question and commend her for the work that she does with women's organisations and with women's safety in her electorate of Robertson. I'd like to mention her work with Peninsula Lighthouse, Central Coast Community Women's Health Centre and Coast Shelter, in particular. We all have organisations like this in our electorates, and it's a good time to thank the frontline workers, including the police and ambulance services as well as the support workers and the counsellors—those who work patiently and sensitively to help women overcome the effects of domestic violence and provide them with assistance to rebuild their lives.
Since 2013, the government has invested over a billion dollars to prevent and respond to violence against women and their children, including $340 million committed to initiatives under the fourth action plan. During the COVID-19 period in particular, the government has provided a $150 million domestic and family violence response package. Of that, $130 million has gone to state and territory governments to invest in those specialist services that support crisis accommodation, frontline services and perpetrator intervention programs. The Minister for Women and the Minister for Families and Social Services in the other place have worked quickly with their counterparts at state and territory level to determine priorities for funding and to share information. That funding has been fully provided to state and territory governments, and they will, of course, allocate it within their jurisdictions. We're continuing our Help is Here campaign to ensure that those affected by family, domestic and sexual violence in this time of COVID know where to seek help. The message there is that a crisis out there is no excuse for violence in here. We're making it very clear indeed.
The 2020-21 federal budget also included a range of measures aimed at improving women's safety. The refreshed Women's Economic Security Statement included funding for Respect@Work to provide practical support to employers and employees to prevent and address sexual harassment. The budget included additional support for the legal system. Everybody has a right to be safe in their homes, their communities and their workplaces. The fourth action plan has record funding to address and improve women's safety. Of course, it's world leading in its focus on early intervention: stopping it before it starts. We remain—and this parliament remains—determined and committed during this plan to leave no-one behind.
Mr Morrison: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
COVID-19 Australians Overseas
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:17): In an earlier answer, I misquoted the figures.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: You may be pleased to hear the even better answer! There were 29,416 inward travel exemption decisions of the Border Force commissioner—that is, allowing foreign nationals to enter Australia for the reasons that I set out. In the circumstances that I was asked about, in relation to Mr Abbott, there were some 95,271 such decisions where those exemption decisions were provided for Australians.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 21 of 2020-21
The SPEAKER (15:18): I present the Auditor-General's performance audit report No. 21 of 2020-21 entitled Delivery of security vetting services follow-up: Department of Defence.
Document made a parliamentary paper in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:18):
Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Report
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (15:19): On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following reports: Report 483, Inquiry into the 2018-19 Defence Major projects report and the Future Submarine project—transition to design: (Auditor-General's reports 19 and 22 (2019-20)), incorporating additional comments, and Report 484, The administration of government grants: inquiry into Auditor-General's reports 5, 12 and 23 (2019-20), incorporating additional comments.
Reports made parliamentary papers in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mrs WICKS: by leave—Report 483 details the committee's findings from the inquiry into the following Auditor-General's reports: Report No. 19, 2018-19 Major projects report, and Report No. 22, Future Submarine project—transition to design. It discusses the committee's findings on the Major projects report, known as the MPR. The MPR is prepared annually by the Australian National Audit Office and the Department of Defence to provide a review of selected Defence major acquisition projects. In the 2018-19MPR, the status of 26 major projects was examined in relation to cost, schedule and forecast capability, alongside a review of the risks, challenges and complexities associated with major projects in general. The total approved 2018-19 budget for the major projects included in the report was approximately $64.1 billion, covering 49 per cent of $132 billion allocated to Defence's total active capital equipment projects.
Reviewing the MPR each year has been a longstanding practice of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and goes to the core of its oversight role of public governance, performance and accountability. In this report, the committee has made six recommendations. In the interests of time, I'll broadly outline some of the key themes. The first includes recommendations directed to improve the clarity, readability and accessibility of the MPR. This is to enable greater understanding by the parliament and the public. This theme is continued in recommendation 3, which outlines that the ANAO, in conjunction with the Department of Defence, should consider ways to make the report more understandable to those who may not have technical knowledge of Defence terminology. The recommendation suggests that changes be made to the definitions section in the MPR, with descriptions of terms such as 'constant costs', 'out-turned costs' and 'risks' and suggests that a description of 'total schedule slippage' be provided, to provide clarity as to the concurrent nature of Defence acquisition and the meaning of this term. Further, recommendation 6 suggests that Defence and the ANAO use clear and accessible language in future Major projects reports when reporting on and describing cost, scope and capability variations.
The second broad area addressed in the recommendations goes to issues identified in relation to key projects examined in the MPR, including the MRH-90 helicopters project. The committee recommends that Defence commission a performance review or independent external audit of the entire helicopter acquisition program in advance of upcoming helicopter acquisitions by Navy and Army. Chapter 3 of the committee's report examines Defence's administration of the Future Submarine program, a significant Defence acquisition program. Noting that the Future Submarine project will be included in subsequent MPRs, the committee has recommended that Defence clarify the required thresholds that categorise Defence major projects listed as projects of concern.
The report is a consensus report of the committee, with additional comments by Senator Patrick.
I also wish to make a few comments in relation to Report 484, The administration of government grants. The report details the committee's findings from the inquiry into the following Auditor-General's reports of 2019-20: Report No. 5, Australian Research Council's administration of the National Competitive Grants Program; Report No. 12, Award of funding under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages; and Report No. 23, Award of funding under the Community Sport Infrastructure Program.
The purpose of this inquiry was to examine the administration of government grants covering a range of program areas, including academic grants, regional and rural infrastructure projects and community sports. The committee's report focused on aspects of grants administration such as corporate governance, program delivery and adherence to Commonwealth rules and guidelines. In examining these matters, the committee made six recommendations that largely address broad themes and issues identified across the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, the Australian Research Council's administration of the National Competitive Grants Program and the Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program.
In recommendation No. 1 the committee notes the recent regulatory changes to require all grant programs run by corporate and non-corporate Commonwealth entities be administered in accordance with the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017. The committee recommends that the Department of Finance review the operation of the guidelines and associated regulations two years after the tabling of this report to ensure they remain efficient and effective.
In recommendation No. 2 the committee suggests that the Department of Finance, in consultation with the ANAO, revise its resource management guides to provide a single authoritative guide to grants administration, provide detailed information regarding legislative requirements of administrative officials and provide clear guidance where advice is either mandatory or optional in administering grants programs.
Recommendation No. 3 outlines that the Department of Finance should review the established reporting and compliance system and approach to ensure that Commonwealth grant program guidelines are adhered to at all points of grant administration for applicable entities and decision-makers.
The importance of record keeping was another key issue raised throughout the inquiry. As such, in recommendation No. 4 the committee outlined that the Department of Finance should review the official recordkeeping requirements of the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017. This includes a focus on ensuring all parties involved in grant administration disclose and record any conflicts of interest. Further, recommendation No. 4 suggests changes be made to ensure records are kept of the reasoning of decisions of a relevant minister or ministers to approval or reject grant applications and recommendations, including ministerial panels. This is particularly important where a minister approves a grant that a relevant official or entity has recommended be rejected or assessed as ineligible.
Recommendation No. 5 addresses a number of potential improvements to the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017. This includes recommending amendments to emphasise the importance of ensuring that all relevant entities involved in grants administration receive and complete sufficient training, with documented processes to ensure the ongoing quality assurance of assessments. Further, these amendments aim to ensure timely and consistent announcement and communication to stakeholders of grant opportunities and outcomes of grant programs and adherence to published guidelines.
Finally, recommendation No. 6 addresses the key issue of decision-making and recommends that Sport Australia review its guidelines in relation to all current and future grant programs to clarify the authorities and duties of the minister for sport and the Australian Sports Commission board and report back to the committee in six months.
The report is a consensus report of the committee that takes a thematic approach to issues contained within the audits examined. It includes additional comments by members of the opposition. On an issue of great public interest, such as this, it is pleasing to see that the committee has continued its tradition of working together in a productive way. I would like to thank all agencies and individuals who participated in both inquiries. I thank the deputy chair. I thank all members of the committee for their contributions and the inquiry secretariat. I commend the reports to the House. I move:
That the House take note of each report.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ) (15:28): The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (15:28): I move:
That the orders of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Public Accounts and Audit Committee
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (15:28): I present executive minutes on reports Nos 452, 475 and 481 of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee
Report
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (15:28): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled A review of regulations listing Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin and re-listing Islamic State Khorasan Province as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr HASTIE: by leave—I rise today to present a statement of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for the review of regulations listing Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, which I will refer to as JNIM, and relisting Islamic State Khorasan Province as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code Act 1995.Regulations that specify an organisation as a terrorist organisation cease to have effect on the third anniversary of the day on which they take effect. Organisations can be relisted, provided the minister is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the organisation continues to directly or indirectly engage in terrorism or advocate the doing of a terrorist act.
Jama'at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin has not previously been listed as a terrorist organisation by the Australian government. This new listing is due to a previously listed organisation, Al-Mourabitoun, merging into JNIM. Al-Mourabitoun and Islamic State Khorasan Province were both previously listed on 3 November 2017. The regulations to relist Islamic State Khorasan Province and to list JNIM were tabled in the parliament on 9 November 2020.
The committee's review examines the minister's decision to list and relist these organisations. Section 102.1A of the Criminal Code provides that the committee may review a regulation that lists or relists an organisation as a terrorist organisation and reports its comments and recommendations to each house of the parliament before the end of the applicable 15 sitting day disallowance period. This statement serves this purpose and is being presented within the required period. In determining whether the regulations listing or relisting these two organisations should be supported, the committee reviewed the merits of each in accordance with the explanatory statement of the Minister for Home Affairs, ASIO's statement of reasons for each organisation and other publicly available information.
In its deliberations, the committee determined that JNIM was formed when three al-Qaeda aligned groups—Ansar Dine, Al-Mourabitoun and a subgroup of al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb—merged into one entity. The organisation continues to be a Sunni Islamist extremist organisation based in Mali and active in West Africa. The group's leader has identified France and western countries assisting France as adversaries and has attacked locations known to be frequented by westerners in Mali and surrounding countries. Although it has not made specific threats against Australia or Australian interests, JNIM is unlikely to differentiate Australians from the citizens of other western countries.
Islamic State Khorasan Province continues to be an officially recognised Islamic State affiliate that directly engages in terrorist attacks in and outside of Afghanistan. Although no Australian citizens have been killed by an Islamic State Khorasan Province attack, this organisation is a close ally of Islamic State, which has called for attacks against Australia and Australian interests.
These organisations remain a real threat to Australia. There's strong evidence that each has and continues to engage in terrorist activities that are targeted at countries with western values. In examining the evidence that has been provided, the committee is satisfied with the relisting and listing processes and considers that they have been followed appropriately for these two organisations. The committee therefore supports the listing of the organisations under division 102 of the Criminal Code in order to protect Australians and Australia's interests, and the committee finds no reason to disallow the regulations.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Report
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (15:33): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I table a corrigendum to the report Criminality, corruption and impunity: Should Australia join the global Magnitsky movement? An inquiry into targeted sanctions to address human rights abuses, which wastabled earlier today.
BILLS
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2020-2021
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2020-2021
Assent
Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [15:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (15:43): The member for Bass gave the game away last week when she had the guts to say what the government will not—and that is that this is just the beginning of much broader rollout of this card. She said:
Applying a broad brush to all recipients in the current sites, no matter their circumstances, is harmful and unhelpful.
There's a high level of anxiety that exists elsewhere in the country beyond the three trial sites. In the northern Tasmanian community that I proudly represent, I've had distressed people, including pensioners, ask me if they will end up having their income managed. And with the amount of time and money spent in addressing the current challenges of this program, it is difficult to believe that this program will end with these current sites.
The member for Bass also said:
I also have a fundamental problem with how this program and this legislation aligns with my own principles. As a Liberal, I believe in personal and individual responsibility. It's the very foundation of our core principles. We work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives. Forcing the cashless debit card program on to people unless, or until, they can prove to the government that they can manage their own finances is antithetical to these principles. Do these principles only apply if you're not poor? I believe we're better than that.
That is what one of the members of the government side said. I note she is not here for the vote today. My question is to the minister. Does the minister agree with the member for Bass that this card is against Liberal principles, this card discriminates against people because they are poor and that applying a card so broadly is harmful?
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (15:45): I also have some questions I'd like to put through to the minister now. The simple reality of this bill is that it is racially discriminatory, and the rollout of the cashless debit card as proposed by the government is disproportionately impacting on First Nations people. Sixty-eight per cent of people who will be forced onto the cashless debit card are First Nations people. Over 23,000 of the 34,000 people impacted by this card will be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people. That includes more than 18,000 people in the Northern Territory. This is an incredibly clear example of policy being done to First Nations people, not with them. My question to the minister is: how can you honestly believe that this bill is not racially discriminatory?
I also note that First Nations peak bodies have been united in their position to oppose the forced rollout of the cashless debit card. Their position has been united and, indeed, clear. They've said that nobody should have this program forced on them, that this program clearly represents and reinforces the colonial attitudes that they struggle against every day. It is yet another example of the government telling First Nations people that they aren't equals, that they don't deserve to have control over their own lives and that they would somehow benefit from a massive oversight and patronising paternalism of government to survive. My question to the minister is: if you didn't listen to First Nations people when drafting this legislation—the group who will be most impacted by this bill—who did you listen to?
This bill, like so many that have come from those who sit on government benches, lacks any evidence base. I am happy to provide the minister with some evidence now. Let's look at this. Researchers from four universities uncovered an overwhelming number of negative experiences stemming from the card, ranging from feelings of stigma, shame and frustration to practical issues, such as the cardholder simply not having enough cash for essential items or important things like paying for their child to go to a school camp or buying the little things that they need. My question to the minister is: who did you consult when drafting the legislation? What evidence was provided that supports this bill?
Government members interjecting—
Ms CLAYDON: I'm glad to hear that government members are interested in this, because there are a lot of questions to be answered. I've got another question—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): Order!
Ms CLAYDON: when it pleases the Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: There are too many interjections from both sides of the House. The honourable member for Newcastle has the call.
Ms CLAYDON: My next question to the minister is on another issue with the bill: people simply get stuck on this card. There is no apparent exit strategy, no pathway for people to ever come off. Time and time again there are applications to come off the card, but they have continuously failed to be approved. It is almost impossible to be allowed to come off the card, despite people showing that they are managing their own affairs and that they are reasonable and responsible people. They should be allowed to come off this card, but we know that that is virtually impossible. So my question to the minister is: can you please tell me how many people have successfully applied to come off the card as a proportion of all applications?
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (15:50): I also have a number of questions, as does the member for Lingiari. I do hope government members, while they all seem absorbed in their phones, are actually listening to this, because we're talking about 23,000 to 30,000 people who will be affected by this. There has not been proper discussion. There has not been proper consultation. Perhaps the member for North Sydney—am I interrupting you?
Government members interjecting—
Ms BURNEY: It's important for people to note that the minister admitted, in budget estimates, that she had not read the evaluation before the decision was taken to move to this legislation. Now, to me that is lazy and it's reprehensible. It shows that this is not about evidence, this is not about what it means out there on the ground; this is actually about ideology.
Now, Labor have been extraordinarily clear about this legislation. We have said, if people want to volunteer to be on the card, it is not the business of government or anyone else to stand in the way of voluntary application. What we object to is the mandatory nature of this. It has been proven in other jurisdictions that mandatory application of welfare is a failure, and my prediction is that this will be no different. In fact, the evaluation that was done by Adelaide university, in conjunction with Monash University, on Ceduna in South Australia actually demonstrated that. It demonstrated there had not been fewer people to present at emergency, it had not stopped drugs and it had not stopped drinking. But all we hear from the government is hearsay, hearsay on whether this works or not.
Well, hearsay is not good enough for me and it's not good enough for the Labor Party! We want evidence. It is reasonable, on behalf of all of those people, that evidence is provided. And clearly the decision of this government about the mandatory nature of the four trial sites and, heaven forbid, the automatic movement of 23,000 people in the Northern Territory from the BasicsCard to the cashless debit card is not voluntary. It's mandatory.
An opposition member: It's social engineering.
Ms BURNEY: And it's social engineering, as my good friend just said. It is not appropriate. There is a thing called human rights. There is a thing called social justice. And there's a thing called human—
Government members interjecting—
An honourable member: Pull your head in!
Ms BURNEY: I think the people who will be affected by this know what is best for them. And it is not simply about a technology change. Don't give me that rubbish.
Mr Howarth interjecting—
Ms BURNEY: Do not give me that rubbish!
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ): Order.
Ms BURNEY: In light of that, can I say that many pensioners and people—
Mr Howarth interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Barton will pause for a moment. The minister will not interject.
Ms BURNEY: Many pensioners and people relying on social security have raised with me the same concerns that have been raised with the member for Bass. Pensioners, age pensioners, across the country are worried that the card will be rolled out to them, and many people on other payments are also worried they'll be forced onto this card. In fact, the government's real plan to roll this card out across the country was laid bare at Senate estimates when the department admitted it had set up technology working groups with the big four banks, the supermarkets and Australia Post. How many pensioners, people on DSP and people on carer payments will be on the cashless debit card— (Time expired)
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (15:55): During question time we heard from the Prime Minister, no less, that he trusted Australian people with their own money. Not if you're a blackfella, you don't. Not if you're an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person, you don't. The Prime Minister said, 'We trust them to make their own decisions'—except if you're an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person in this country. What a bizarre notion. We've had the Prime Minister stand here today and claim that he supports the rights of people to make their own decisions about how they spend their money. Yet at the very same time, walking the other side of the street, he's saying it's okay to compulsorily quarantine incomes. It's not. It's not. Prime Minister, why are you treating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people differently? The bulk of this, we know, is racially discriminatory. 'Why would the government support racially discriminatory legislation?' You might well ask, because that's what this is. Let there be no doubt.
People have mentioned the BasicsCard. Since the day of the intervention in the Northern Territory, I've been on the record opposing the intervention and opposing the BasicsCard and its imposition. Compulsorily applying income quarantining—how can you do this? I understand the argument about people needing to look after their families having their incomes properly managed. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about a universal application of quarantining, compelling people to have their incomes quarantined. That is not an opt-in process. It's unreasonable, it's unfair and it's discriminatory. This government needs to understand what it does for people. There is no evidence at all that this thing works. We know that. The University of Adelaide's research, which the government won't release, was reported on in The Guardian today and it demonstrates very clearly that this scheme is unfair and unreasonable.
The Law Council of Australia put out a press release today which I'm pleased to be able to read:
The Law Council of Australia is concerned by the restrictive nature of the Cashless Debit Card (CDC) and urges the Parliament to abandon any plan to make it an ongoing program. With the House of Representatives debating the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill today, the Law Council believes that the Bill is being pursued without the benefit of a full and independent evaluation of the CDC’s merits, or adequate community consultation of the Bill’s current proposals.
We know that whatever research has been undertaken previously, by academics and others, has demonstrated that this does not work. But the government says 'bad luck'. The Law Council refers to the Audit Office, as well as academics, having expressed grave concerns as to the methodology of these early evaluations. This is a real issue about discrimination. The Law Council says:
The CDC, especially as expanded, disproportionately applies to Indigenous peoples, and may be inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
It is. I ask the minister as he leaves the chamber whether he has understood what the Law Council has said about the racially discriminatory nature of this bill. Who benefits from it?
I've been involved in this game for 30-odd years, and I have never seen an approach to people in this country such as the one which has been adopted by this government. You have a responsibility, Prime Minister, to come and explain to people why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are to be treated differently, such as in the way you are proposing to do it in this bill. It is unfair, it is unreasonable, it's unjust and it is unconscionable. Any member of this House who sits here and says they believe in and support Aboriginal self-determination and decision-making while supporting this legislation is being an absolute hypocrite. But hypocrisy knows no bounds, as we know. (Time expired)
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (16:00): I also have some questions for the minister. In the debate on the second reading speech of this bill, the Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020, a number—well, not a number; there weren't very many government members speaking on this bill, were there? I imagine they were too ashamed to. But at least one government member said: 'Well, what's wrong with the cashless welfare card? I use my credit card all the time!' Just now in debate, the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts interjected to say, 'Don't you know that during COVID most people went cashless?'
Will the minister explain to the government backbenchers and the minister for communications the difference between using a credit card with which you can buy whatever you want, whenever you want, and being forced to go onto the government's mandatory cashless welfare card, which is racist in its application? Will the minister make clear to the other cabinet ministers, who appear not to know what this legislation that they are voting on is about, that this legislation is nothing like Australian citizens choosing to use their cashless debit or credit cards, because this forces people to use a card which stigmatises them, which calls them out as people on unemployment benefits and which applies disproportionately to Australia's First Nations people?
As the member for Barton has pointed out, we know that this government has spoken to the big four banks, supermarkets and Australia Post about the technology to extend this draconian legislation beyond First Nations people who are on benefits. Will the minister stand up in this place today and rule out extending the cashless welfare card to other recipients of government allowances? One person in five in my electorate is on a pension. There are more than 10,000 adults in the electorate of Dunkley on unemployment benefits and more than 1,000 young people on youth allowance. Sadly, those numbers are likely to go up before they come down. Will the minister say, once and for all, that it is not this government's intention to tell people on pensions, family tax benefits, single mothers supports, carers supports and disability supports how they can and can't spend their money?
How many local businesses in the sites where these cards have been on trial have missed out on business because they can't facilitate the cashless welfare card? Can the minister answer that question? And does the minister agree that government policy—particularly policy that impacts on the lives of people by telling them what they can or can't do—should always be based on evidence? Or is that only an attitude that the government took during COVID-19, and it doesn't apply to legislation and schemes that disproportionately impact on Australia's First Nations people? If the minister intends to push on with this legislation, does the minister then concede that this government picks and chooses evidence only when it wants to?
Finally, will the minister explain, or ask the Prime Minister to come into this chamber and explain, how he could stand up in February of this year and tell this parliament that he was the first Prime Minister ever to commit to working with First Nations people, to support their self-determination and to not telling them what to do, and yet vote for this draconian, racist legislation? Can the minister assure this chamber that the Prime Minister didn't mislead this chamber in February when he said he would support First Nations people and communities in the programs that they want to have to assist their welfare?
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (16:05): I have five questions for the minister on this Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. A few moments ago the Prime Minister stood here in question time and said that he trusts Australians to spend their own money in the way that they determine is in their best interests. Now, when the Prime Minister made that declaration, it was quite clear to us that it was quite clear to him that in his mind there are two classes of Australians. Perhaps there are the Australians who look just like him and the people who sit behind him in this parliament: middle class. Perhaps they've never had to rely on welfare—they've never had the indignity, or the unfortunate circumstances, of having to rely on an unemployment benefit. They're very, very lucky indeed. I know that on this side of the House many of us have and many in our families have.
In his mind, there are two classes of Australians: one class of Australians who have the right to determine how they spend their money and the other class that doesn't. So my question to the minister is: why does this government want to divide Australians into two classes—those who are worthy of having their full rights and those who aren't worthy of having that right that he says is fundamental?
The second question I have to the minister is this: why won't they listen to an Indigenous voice to this parliament? Indigenous people have said, 'Not only do we believe that these laws are targeted at us but we do not believe that these laws are going to fix the problems that you say they're directed at.' The evidence is in. The Australian National University conducted research to see whether there was any decrease in domestic violence at the trial site in the Kimberley accompanied by the introduction of these laws. They concluded, after extensive research—including consultations with community members, consultations with specialist services and consultations with the police force—that there was no decrease in family violence as a result of the introduction of this law. We know that this government persistently refuses to listen to Indigenous voices. It's why they're so adamant that they won't have an Indigenous voice to this parliament.
My third question to the minister is this: why won't they listen to the experts—the experts from the Australian National University, who conducted a study of the rollout of these measures in the pilot site in the Kimberley, or the experts from the University of Adelaide, experts who they provided with $2.5 million to conduct an analysis of the rollout of this measure in the voluntary pilot site in Ceduna. They declared that there's no evidence that these measures are meeting the government's stated objective. Why does the government persist with a measure when it does not accord with the evidence of the experts?
My fourth question to the government is this: why do you persist with this outdated cliche of what an unemployed person looks like?
They have this notion, born perhaps of inexperience, belied by the member from Bass, who has some personal experience of this—who could not have been moved by her contribution in this debate?—that they persist with that somehow the unemployment queues, much swelled of late, consist of a million people who are putting their feet up on the desk, refusing to look for work, spending their unemployment benefits willy-nilly in an irresponsible way. The facts are stubborn and they are very different. Is the government aware that one of the biggest groups of unemployed people are people over the age of 55? In fact, 20 per cent of Australians between the ages of 55 and 65 are out of a job. Why does the government persist— (Time expired)
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:10): I think it's relatively unknown in this place that I've spent several years of my life working in the Northern Territory.
Mr Snowdon interjecting—
Ms TEMPLEMAN: Yes, the member for Lingiari knows. I share his fondness for the Territory. For nearly two decades, every few weeks I would go and spend a week in Darwin or Alice working with a range of Aboriginal organisations, government agencies and not-for-profits. And bit by bit I gathered a deep understanding of the ongoing, hard and deadly issues that face people in the Northern Territory, face our First Peoples. These issues have failed to be solved by successive governments.
I was working there when the intervention happened. When I look at this legislation I reflect back on the brutality of that time, on the way people in the Northern Territory, Aboriginal and Tiwi Islanders, had their rights totally stripped away from them. They talked to me of the shame of driving to their communities and seeing signs up telling people the revelations and the concerns about what wouldn't be allowed in their communities—nothing that they had given consent to. This was stuff that was imposed on them. I think that's what we are seeing here. We are seeing a mandatory enforcement of a cashless welfare card where people have not been genuinely consulted. It's an insult to them.
I have questions for the minister. I want to quote the Prime Minister. I don't often do that, but I really want to quote the Prime Minister here who, at the Closing the Gap speech in parliament this year, said:
We thought we were helping when we replaced independence with welfare. This must change. We must restore the right to take responsibility. The right to make decisions. The right to step up. The opportunity to own and create Australian's own futures.
The government partnership agreement on Closing the Gap states:
…direct engagement and negotiation is the preferred pathway to productive and effective outcomes.
Given those very important statements, my first questions to the minister is: given this card strips away agency and responsibility from thousands of people, simply because of who they are and where they live, how is the government's policy consistent with the Prime Minister's comments that First Nations people have the right to take responsibility and the right to make decisions? My second question is, and this is a crucial one: does every community where this card is to be imposed support it? What process has the government followed to get the support of hundreds of communities across the Northern Territory? Because that is the big gap in this whole proposal: the lack of genuine consultation, the lack of listening to evidence about it. They're not even releasing the report by The University of Adelaide. The minister admitted to not having read the report—not even the executive summary.
There are concerns for the impact this will have on Aboriginal people not just in the Northern Territory but across this country and how it may be extended to people in the electorates that every one of us represent—to people in Macquarie, pensioners, those on youth allowance, those who for a period of time are requiring social support, those for whom there is a long-term requirement or people on disability pensions? There are concerns for all those people. Can you imagine for pensioners, whose lives shrink as they get older and their incomes reduce, how this would shrink their lives even more?
I have other questions to the minister. How many jobs did the cashless debit card create in each of the trial sites? How many will it create in the NT? I wonder about the effect it will have on small businesses in my community if it's rolled out. Crucially, there's no evidence that it changes behaviours. I ask the minister: how many drug and alcohol rehab places are available in each cashless debit card site? Can the minister guarantee that there are no waiting lists and there is enough help to meet demand?
Bill agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (16:16): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The SPEAKER: The question is this bill be now read a third time.
The House divided. [16:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
QUESTIONS TO THE SPEAKER
House of Representatives: Procedure
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:23): Mr Speaker, I have a question for you in terms of the administration of the House. With respect to the use of the casting vote—given that we've just had a vote where the margin was one and given that at the very end of last week a new member joined us—can you confirm that when a vote is tied then at the second reading the casting vote would go with the government to allow further debate, but that at the third reading, a tied vote would, in fact, result in the defeat of the bill?
The SPEAKER (16:24): It's certainly the case that the principles are outlined well in Practice, which is that you always allow further debate. That principle extends to if there were a motion to stop a member speaking et cetera, et cetera. But, ultimately, if, on a third reading, there is a tie, certainly, the bill doesn't progress any further. Whilst I've had a number of casting votes, I haven't been in that situation. It's outlined there in Practice.
Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Bill 2020
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2020
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the concerns and uncertainty around the implementation of this bill and the Coalition Government's broader failures on foreign investment"
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to immediately stop all foreign takeovers of agricultural lands and place a ban on the acquisition of assets of strategic economic importance or strategic defensive importance to Australia".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Andrews ) (16:26): Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I remind the House that it's been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill and the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2020. The original question was that this bill now be read a second time. To this the honourable member for Rankin moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Kennedy has now moved as an amendment to that amendment that all words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy to the amendment moved by the honourable member for Rankin be disagreed to.
Mr CHAMPION (Spence) (16:27): Labor supports the Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Bill 2020. I think the member for Rankin is going to speak in support of his amendments. My main issue with this whole area, when we're looking at foreign investment proposals, is that we're talking very much of prospective foreign investment proposals. My concern is that, over the last 30 years, we've seen a whole range of Australian assets privatised—most recently, the port of Darwin, which I've had something to say about in the press. I've called for that sale to be resolved by nationalisation. I think that the port of Darwin should be in the hands of the Australian government. I think that's a sensible thing to do because it protects our sovereign interests. But, of course, over the last few decades, there's been an orgy of privatisation and an orgy of outsourcing of state government assets.
In South Australia, we've seen the privatisation of electricity. We've seen the lease of assets which should be held in government hands, notably the Electricity Trust of South Australia. What we saw there was, first of all, not just privatisation but also the sin of disaggregation, where they split up what was essentially a unit for the creation and distribution of electricity generation—poles and wires. They split it up and sold it off bit by bit because they thought that that would be the way they'd make the most money. In the process of disaggregating it, they wrecked, in my opinion, a system that produced low-cost energy for South Australia. They sold it off bit by bit. The disaggregation is a problem, but the sale itself was a problem.
When it was sold, it was in a very benign international environment. A company from Hong Kong, CK Infrastructure Holdings, bought, in particular, the poles and wires part of the electricity distribution network in South Australia. We now have the situation where Hong Kong is effectively under the control of the People's Republic of China and the companies in that jurisdiction are also under the control of that government. That is undoubtedly a question for that country, but there is the issue that the South Australian electricity network has been sold to a company which has been excluded from participating in the sale and privatisation of other energy assets in this country, notably, the privatisations in New South Wales. So we have the situation where, because a privatisation occurred 30 years ago now, somehow, the ownership arrangements which were allowed at that time are allowed to remain in force. I don't think that's a sensible thing for this country to do. It's certainly not a sensible thing for South Australia.
The privatisation of those assets has been a disaster for other reasons—for economic reasons. A 99-year lease was a particularly poor way of structuring the sale. It was sold at a bargain basement price—many of these electricity assets are sold for bargain basement prices. But it's now also an issue, I think, of national security. These very important assets—the Port of Darwin and, in this case, the electricity grid of South Australia; poles and wires are the spine and architecture of our electricity system in South Australia—are now owned by a foreign company, and one within a very different international environment from which we had when the grid was sold in the 1990s.
When we're looking at these bills, we actually need to have a bit of a think. One of Labor's criticisms is that they've been rushed. We need to have a very close look at what has been sold over the last three decades, because you can't do much without electricity. It's pretty critical to modern life. In my mind it would be best if these assets were held in public hands, particularly at the moment, and that those assets, if not in public hands, were at least in the hands of Australian investors and Australian companies.
With that, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (16:33): I would like to thank those members who have contributed to this debate on the Foreign Investment Reform (Protecting Australia's National Security) Bill 2020. This package of bills will make important changes to strengthen Australia's foreign investment review framework, while ensuring that Australia maintains a welcoming environment for investment that is not contrary to our national interests.
These reforms will ensure that from 1 January 2021 Australia's foreign investment review framework is properly equipped to keep pace with emerging risks and global developments. These changes preserve the underlying principles of our system, that Australia welcomes foreign investment for the significant benefits it provides but also ensures that investments are not contrary to the national interest. Australia's foreign investment framework will remain nondiscriminatory and applications will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): I thank the minister. The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Rankin moved as an amendment that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Kennedy has moved, as an amendment to that amendment, that all words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Kennedy be disagreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Kennedy be disagreed to.
The House divided. [16:39]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (16:53): The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The House divided. [16:53]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (16:57): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5) as circulated in my name together:
(1) Schedule 1, page 34 (after line 1), after item 80, insert:
80A After section 63
Insert:
63A Requirement to publish reasons for exemption certificates
(1) If the Treasurer gives an exemption certificate under section 57, 58 or 59, the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after giving the certificate, ensure that the following are published on a website maintained by the Department:
(a) the exemption certificate;
(b) the reasons for deciding to give the certificate, including the reasons for any conditions specified in the certificate.
(2) If the Treasurer varies or revokes an exemption certificate under section 62, the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after giving the variation or revocation, ensure that the following are published on a website maintained by the Department:
(a) the exemption certificate as varied, or a statement that the exemption certificate has been revoked (as the case requires); and
(b) the reasons for deciding to vary or revoke the certificate, including the reasons for any conditions specified on the varied certificate.
(3) The Treasurer may redact from an exemption certificate or reasons required to be published under subsection (1) or (2), any information that would be contrary to the national interest to publicly disclose.
(2) Schedule 1, page 48 (after line 3), at the end of Subdivision B of Division 2 of Part 3, add:
76B Requirement to publish reasons for no objection notifications
(1) If the Treasurer gives a no objection notification under this Subdivision, the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after giving the notification, ensure the following are published on a website maintained by the Department:
(a) the no objection notification;
(b) the reasons for deciding to give the no objection notification, including the reasons for any conditions specified in the notification.
(2) If the Treasurer varies a no objection notification under subsection 74(4), the Treasurer must, as soon as practicable after giving the variation, ensure that the following are published on website maintained by the Department:
(a) the no objection notification as varied;
(b) the reasons for deciding to vary the no objection notification, including the reasons for revoking or varying an existing condition specified in the no objection notification, or for imposing a new condition.
(3) The Treasurer may redact from a no objection notification or reasons required to be published under subsection (1) or (2), any information that would be contrary to the national interest to publicly disclose.
(3) Schedule 1, item 132, page 67 (after line 9), after subsection 79M(1), insert:
Requirement to include reasons for orders
(1A) The Treasurer must ensure that an order registered under subsection (1) includes the Treasurer's reasons for making the order.
(1B) The Treasurer may redact from the reasons required to be included in the order under subsection (1A), any information that would be contrary to the national interest to publicly disclose.
(4) Schedule 1, item 132, page 71 (after line 6), after subsection 79S(1), insert:
Requirement to include reasons for directions
(1A) The Treasurer must ensure that a direction that is published under subsection (1) includes the Treasurer's reasons for making the direction.
(1B) The Treasurer may redact from the reasons required to be included in the direction under subsection (1), any information that would be contrary to the national interest to publicly disclose.
(5) Schedule 1, item 132, page 72 (after line 6), after subsection 79U(3), insert:
(3A) The Treasurer must ensure that a variation or revocation hat is published under subsection (3) includes the Treasurer's reasons for making the variation or revocation.
(3B) The Treasurer may redact from the reasons required to be included in the variation or revocation under subsection (3A), any information that would be contrary to the national interest to publicly disclose.
The bill before the House obviously provides the Treasurer with enormous power and discretion. It allows the Treasurer to impose conditions, to vary existing conditions and, as a last resort, to force the divestment of any realised investment where national security concerns are identified. It also provides the Treasurer with greater enforcement, monitoring and investigative powers to respond to actual or likely noncompliance by investors, including call-in powers to review certain actions not otherwise captured under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975. If the public is to have confidence that these powers are being wielded responsibly, we must know when and why the Treasurer uses this power and discretion. To that end, my amendments will ensure that the decisions and reasons for the decisions made by the Treasurer under this act will be on the public record.
Moreover, these amendments are particularly important because of the loose definitions of 'national security' or 'decisions not contrary to national security' that are used to initiate the new national security test. There have been many occasions over the past 10 years on which I voted against legislation that erodes civil rights and the freedom of the press in the name of national security. I've also voted against the barbaric treatment of asylum seekers and refugees that has been actioned in the name of national security. And I've voted against the unfettered and unprecedented levels of power given to ministers and our security agencies in the name of national security but without accountability or independent review.
I want to know, and I think the community wants to know, what the government considers to be contrary to the national interest and what actions by foreign investors give rise to national security concerns. Too often the government has used the term 'national security' to protect its own interests. The public disclosure of this information that I propose this afternoon would provide some surety for foreign investors intending to invest in Australia and also build public trust that the decisions made under the foreign investment framework are warranted. Indeed, without these amendments, how do we know that decision-makers will not use these legislative powers to help out their mates or perhaps the large political donors at the next election? The half-baked ICAC proposal by the government is certainly not going to provide any comfort to the community. In fact, without a federal ICAC we really need all the decisions made at the discretion of ministers to be on the public record.
By the end of 2019, the total current foreign investment in Australia had reached $3.8 trillion. There is no doubt that foreign investment is increasingly complex, particularly in this climate of rapidly changing technology and shifts in our international security settings. Foreign ownership or control of strategic assets, prime agricultural land and residential property has been especially problematic in recent years. The 99-year lease of the Darwin Port, which is a significant defence asset, and the sale of Van Diemen's Land Company, Australia's biggest dairy asset, are obvious examples. I believe that the sale of these assets to foreign interests are clearly inconsistent with Australia's national interest and public expectation. This is one of the reasons I agree the Treasurer should have increased powers and discretion, outlined in this bill.
I support the bill, but I want to know, and the community wants to know, what decisions are made and for what reason these extensive powers are enacted under this legislation. I believe the community, business and industry, as well as foreign investors, would want to know. These amendments provide for that clarity and transparency. I hope they get the support of both major parties, because surely the government and the opposition would realise by now how important transparency is to the Australian community. In essence, I just want the Treasurer's decisions and the reasons for those decisions to be on the public record, available through a publicly accessible website so we just know what's going on and why it's going on.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ): The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
Bill agreed to.
The House divided. [17:07]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mrs Wicks)
Third Reading
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) (17:13): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) (17:14): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Electoral Matters Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Wicks ) (17:14): The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Conaghan to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in place of Mrs Wicks.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) (17:15): by leave—I move:
That Mrs Wicks be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and that, in her place, Mr Conaghan be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020
Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (17:16): I foreshadow that I will be tabling and moving a second reading amendment in the course of my contribution today.
At the outset, it's important to emphasise that the opposition is going to support the Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020, but frankly it's just disappointing that here we are again debating another bill that should have been passed long ago. Sadly, farmers are becoming accustomed to the fact that they are often overlooked by this Liberal-National government, which portrays itself as representing them but whose actions betray its words about what will be done. During 2017, Sheep Producers Australia commissioned a review of the impacts of any change to the Australian definition of 'lamb' such that it would harmonise the Australian definition with that of our friends across the Tasman in New Zealand. In March 2018, SPA endorsed a change in the industry definition based on a formal industry-wide call for feedback. In March 2019, an amendment to the Export Control (Meat and Meat Products) Orders 2005 changed the definition of lamb. However, it was not reflected in all legislation, which brings us here today.
This bill was introduced in the House of Reps on 17 June 2020 and seeks to align the definition of 'lamb' for the purpose of imposing levies and imposing sheep and lamb customs charges and alter the statutory definition of 'lamb' to include 'an ovine animal that is under 12 months of age, or does not have permanent incisor teeth in wear'. These bills will bring Australia's definition of sheep and lamb in line with international competitors and streamline the levy system for industry. It will also bring administrative clarity to levy payers by ensuring consistency across the statutory definitions of sheep and lamb and the levies and charges that are imposed on the animals.
But, as always with this government, it's been a long time coming. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the SPA endorsed the changes to the definition of sheep and lamb in March 2018, over two years ago, and here we are, in December 2020, still attempting to implement these changes. It's yet another example of the government failing to prioritise agriculture and overlooking the importance of an efficient and streamlined research and development scheme. As we know, the levy system allows producers to collectively fund research and development, marketing, animal health, biosecurity and other projects that will benefit their industry. We've got to ask ourselves: why has it taken the government over two years to amend the definition in these acts?
I'm not here to speculate about the monetary effects on R&D of the government failing to bring this bill before parliament sooner; however, I do think it's appropriate to reflect on what it says about the government's priorities, and agriculture certainly isn't one of them. Unfortunately, it is a story all too familiar to our farmers. This government has failed to prioritise agriculture legislation for the past seven years. To name a few, the Wine Australia Amendment (Label Directory) Bill 2019 was introduced in the Senate on 2 December last year. Similarly, the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2019 was introduced last December but hasn't been passed. The fact is the government makes the big announcements, gets the headlines out there, throws meaningless amounts of money at industry but has done nothing to fix the gaping policy vacuum that's been created by seven years of inaction by this government.
Since becoming the shadow minister for agricultural and resources, I have been able to undertake regional trips for the portfolio, particularly in regional New South Wales and regional Victoria, and I have been grateful for the chance to tour with the member for Eden-Monaro, Kristy McBain; the member for Macquarie, Susan Templeman; and senator for Victoria, Raff Ciccone. In Eden-Monaro, there was a packed schedule for meeting with the Tumbarumba Vignerons Association, touring the Hyne Timber Tumbarumba Mill and visiting Batlow Apples—I'll speak further in relation to the Tumbarumba Vignerons Association in an upcoming bill. I just wanted to stress that I've got nothing but full admiration for the heartfelt and passionate commitment of these businesses to overcome everything nature threw at them over the last 12 months. When you think about droughts, bushfire and then the pandemic on top of that, these businesses, like most in the sector, have undertaken an extraordinary amount during that period of time.
What I saw across these communities is the impact of government apathy or delay, particularly through bushfire and drought recovery. It is taking far too long for government assistance to come through. We need to think of ways to protect people who are under threat and jobs that are under threat in the regions and rural communities that are feeling that pressure. It was particularly staggering when I took into account that it's been over a year since those bushfires, particularly in regional New South Wales, started to sweep through. It took ages to get the assistance in place, and then on top of that, after that delay, new announcements seemed to be—maybe I'm cynical—timed to be held with a by-election that was occurring in early July. Even in my recent visit in November, it was still taking time for that money to flow through. It simply should not be the case that people that endured so much had to wait for so long.
I was able to visit the seat of Macquarie on National Agriculture Day, a day when we congratulate Australia's agriculture sector for helping put high-quality food on our tables and, importantly, for being an employer of over 319,000 people and 85,000 farm businesses and making a contribution of over $60 billion to our nation's economy—and that has increased, as has been recorded and noted today by ABARES. The member for Macquarie and I visited Bilpin Cider, where I met Sean Prendergast to hear how their business has grown since 2015 and the challenges they faced when they had to close their cellar door at the height of the pandemic.
Whilst Bilpin Cider didn't lose any of their trees to bushfire, other businesses weren't so lucky. For example, the owners of Bilpin Fruit Bowl showed me what they had lost and the way in which those fires crept on to their property and took down so much. In fact, the bushfire affected a lot of the property itself, and they're recovering from that. I might say, to the credit of the government, some of the funding has gotten through for them to recalibrate their business in different ways, and I think they were very happy with assistance that the federal government that finally got through to them. I congratulate the federal government on that funding. When visiting there, I met with Margaret and Simon Tadrosse to hear about the challenges facing them and other producers.
It's important to know that they lost over 7,000 apple trees and acres of netting protecting their crops in those bushfires in December last year. The damage to their property is estimated to be $3 million and, quite frankly, it took them quite a bit of time to get their insurance. There were quibbles with insurance and trying to get that through. It finally did happen, but it's something that has been of concern which I have picked up along the way—the amount of time it took for the insurers to come to the party. Again, there was extensive damage to their property, estimated to be about $3 million. A year later, some of them are still waiting to get support through what has been promised to repair fire affected infrastructure.
If agriculture is going to reach its goal—and the government has aligned itself to the National Farmers Federation's goal of seeing a $100 billion contribution by agriculture by 2030—the government will need to start showing some leadership. The government's neglect to legislate, in this case, the revised definition of 'sheep' and 'lamb'; the wine-labelling bill that we'll be debating shortly; and the streamlining administration bill highlights a disregard for the sector and also a disregard for the importance of research and development and the RDCs.
The agriculture minister has said that the RDCs are on notice. He has commissioned reports and held inquiries into the RDCs, but there hasn't been much as a result of all that talk. The minister's $2.6 million review into RDCs found that they're not fit for purpose. That report was delivered before the 2019 election. Then, in September last year, the government undertook a review—another review—into modernising the RDC system. That produced two discussion papers—hallelujah for that! Two discussion papers! They culminated in the announcement of the National Agricultural Innovation Agenda on 1 September 2020.
Part of this agenda involves the development of a national agricultural innovation strategy, which won't be announced until the first half of next year. Just like the elusive agricultural workers strategy, it seems the innovation strategy will be remarkably and similarly elusive. And while we wait for this third-term government to deliver its strategies, on 1 October the minister announced Agriculture Innovation Australia. According to the minister's media release there is $1.3 million committed to kickstart investment in AIA, which is intended to deliver:
… cross-industry research, to leverage private sector investment and to target transformational innovation.
These are all fine words; let's see if they actually get anywhere.
At estimates, Labor senators sought clarity about AIA's mandate. However, they were unable to establish anything substantive. It seems there's a lot of money going out the door to support AIA. Whether or not this will lead to anything significant, concrete or tangible we'll wait to see. The RDCs were also unable to tell us what AIA will do that existing RDCs should not already be doing. What's clear is that the individual RDCs will be buying into the AIA, using levy-payer dollars, more than likely to conduct research they should have been undertaking themselves. The effectiveness of the AIA remains to be seen. However, it seems very unlikely it will successfully remedy the inefficiencies of existing RDCs.
I just want to remark on this fact: in Victoria, against this backdrop and in the absence of government leadership, we've seen the ag sector in Australia take the lead on innovation and innovation investment. With the New South Wales-Victoria border reopening the other week, I was able to visit regional Victoria, as I indicated earlier, with senator for Victoria Raff Ciccone. We went to Gippsland Jersey to hear about their plans to expand and build their presence in the Australian dairy industry. They showed us how much they've been concentrating on clean and sustainable farming by helping and supporting other local dairy farmers. They have big plans to diversify their product range and have been displaying quite actively and talking about that through social media. I commend them on that, and thank them for their time.
In Heyfield I visited Australian Sustainable Hardwoods, Australia's largest hardwood manufacturer. I undertook a tour of their factory and also saw some of the ways that they're changing their production processes with the implementation of fairly sophisticated production techniques that are allowing them to undertake quite significant and different projects along the way. I was very grateful for the time there. We had the opportunity to meet with the CFMMEU to hear about how innovation on the plant floor is helping to not only improve worker safety but, importantly, improve workers' employability and the sustainability of their jobs longer terms. In just a couple of weeks I have been able to meet with all these stakeholders, and I'm very grateful for their time and their advice and to have had the ability to learn from them and in particular to hear some of the issues they care deeply about that affect their sector.
The thing that did strike me is that there is a concern about a lack of leadership being displayed by the government. Again, any question time you can hear the minister for agriculture go to the dispatch box and rattle off announcements. He'll rattle off amounts of money that they're prepared to spend. It all sounds great, but people are waiting for the actual delivery. There is, I suspect, a degree of frustration creeping in over the fact that the government will make announcements—they announce legislation, table it and it takes a year to get here for debate—and then there's not much being seen by way of delivery.
We had the meeting bringing together the ag ministers from across the country held last week. It was the first time, according to those state and territory ministers, that they were going to have a substantive meeting in 10 months. Those ministers actually released a letter expressing their frustration at the lack of any substantive policy agenda that was going to be debated through AGMIN. I imagine that there'll be some within government ranks who'll say, 'It was just one political side lobbing a criticism against another.' This wasn't the case because even state governments that are not of the same political persuasion as us are also saying that AGMIN should be used in a much more comprehensive way to deal with the issues of the sector—for example, the pressures that are being put on the sector as a result of the need to diversify trade given the current disputes that are going. When you look at the major exports in agriculture—wool, barley, wine, beef and seafood—they're all affected at the moment with respect to some of the disputes that we're having with one particular destination. We don't need to necessarily name it. I think everyone's big enough and wise enough to know who I'm referring to there. The pressure for trade diversification is well and truly on, but I wonder whether or not this agriculture minister gets it.
At the Rural Press Club on 8 October, in response to questioning about what might be done on diversification, his big contribution was to blame exporters and say: 'These are decisions that are made by companies. They're not made by us as a government. We just open up the markets. It's the companies' issue whether or not they decide to put all their eggs in the one basket.' We've seen in the last few weeks a very furtive attempt by him and the trade minister to suggest that they're in these crisis talks with the sector to undertake trade diversification. But that's a really different story to just a few weeks earlier, when he was trying to blame individual exporters. When the government make a trade agreement, they're there to claim the credit and to claim how they've opened up these markets and have encouraged people and companies to export—and they absolutely should do that. But they're not there when help is needed or they scramble to respond.
As I said, you'd expect the agriculture minister we have would be a bit wiser. But there's a thing with this agriculture minister. He loves to talk tough. He loves to show that he's across his area. He loves to show that he's sticking up for it and he's taking a tough stand. But he doesn't necessarily show that toughness can also be paired with wisdom and that you might want to think before you speak, particularly in respect of this issue. Certainly this minister, who I've criticised in this place for not being across the detail, for example, of the Biosecurity Act, which he initially thought the department did not administer in respect of people and said that it didn't cover human health—big news to a lot of Australians!— should really demonstrate that he's taken the time to know the acts that are actually within the purview of his own department. Maybe we'll see some action on that front in a concrete sense.
And I come back to this point: he makes a lot of claims, suggests that there's a lot of action, throws out the figures, throws out the numbers, and where is it all getting to? That has prompted me—and I flagged this with the clerks—to move a second reading amendment:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for its failed record in assisting drought-affected farmers and communities".
That amendment has been seconded by the member for Fenner.
Dr Leigh: I knew there was a reason I went to an agricultural high school!
Mr HUSIC: And a capable seconder he is, because he informs me dutifully that he went to an agricultural high school—well done, Dr Leigh.
In putting that amendment forward, I re-emphasise that this is a minister who loves making announcements, but where's the follow-through? Let me go through some of the things that were announced: a drought resilience self-assessment tool, $3 million, with the first phase of the tool expected to be operational before 30 June 2021; climate services for the agriculture program, $10 million, with the first phase of the platform expected to be operational before 30 June 2021; National Resource Management Drought Resilience Program—Landscapes, $5 million, with funds expected to be provided for activities to commence in February 2021; and National Resource Management Drought Resilience Program grants, $10 million, with funding for successful applicants expected to be provided for activities to commence in early 2021.
So, 2021 is going to be a big year in responding to drought—a hell of a time, given what people have had to go through out in the regions, tackling drought. With most of these funds, these activities, it's great to announce them, or talk about them here at the dispatch box, but look at the actual implementation. More examples: drought resilience research and adoption, $20.3 million, with the call for applications for innovation grants expected to be open in February 2021, and networks for building drought resilience, $8.75 million, a competitive grant with the first round to select a provider to deliver the program expected to open in September 2020—and we look forward to seeing the results of that.
With some of the things I mentioned, where people have struggled and had to face that level of adversity, you would expect that there'd be a lot more dexterity and speed by the government in order to get through all that and deliver it in a meaningful way. We still hear, for example, concerns about the Future Drought Fund. Certainly you'd expect a lot more money to be flowing to affected communities as a result of that. But early on in my service in this shadow ministerial portfolio I'm hearing the concern that it's not moving fast enough. The fact that I'm picking that up in such a short period of time should be a concern to the government.
I also want to reflect, if I may—on indulgence—on something else that happened in the past week. In order to get across these issues and particularly to understand what's happening in rural and regional communities, for people across the country, we depend on a vibrant media that is reporting on the things that are affecting rural and regional communities. It was my great pleasure last week to attend an awards evening that recognised the contributions of journalists in rural and regional Australia, in particular during the tough year that people have experienced. The event was convened by the National Rural Press Club and supported by a number of companies, and I want to commend those companies for the support they gave, as this forms a vital platform for recognising the contribution of rural journalists.
The National Rural Press Club 2020 Excellence in Rural Journalism Awards evening was held at the National Press Club here in Canberra. The awards presented included the Westpac Best News Story award, the Animal Medicines Australia Best Feature Story award, the CropLife Scoop of the Year award, the CaseIH Best Photograph of the Year award, the National Rural Press Club Best New Journalist or Cadet award and the overall winner award. These awards went to a number of people who I particularly want to highlight.
One winner who stood out for me was the overall award winner, Sean Davey. He was the unanimous choice of the judges for his picture capturing a particularly difficult moment in time that summed up months of horrendous events. His photo of a farmer, Steve Shipton, having to put down an injured calf in his paddock after a bushfire in New South Wales on 1 January this year is a very powerful image. As they say, a picture tells a thousand words, and this one certainly did. It obviously captured what a lot of farmers had to go through over the course of that event.
There were a number of other awards as well, as I mentioned. Clare Armstrong, from The Daily Telegraph, took out the Westpac Best News Story. The Animal Medicines Australia Feature Story went to Clint Jasper, who is part of the ABC's national regional reporting team, for his report on the scrapping of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. He also filed a number of reports on the bushfires. The CropLife Scoop of the Year award went to The Australian's Rosie Lewis in respect of the Eden-Monaro by-election earlier this year. The CaseIH Best Photograph of the Year award went to Sean Davey. And I want to extend my congratulations, because it's always important to recognise people coming through the ranks and taking up the case of quality rural journalism, to the Best New Journalist or Cadet award winner, Andrea Cantle from the Bay Post. She joined the Bay Post as a cadet last year, and, in some of the most difficult circumstances so early in a career, had to cover a bomb scare that evacuated the CBD of the bay area and did outstanding coverage of the bushfires, which devastated her new home. For a period of time, she had to share premises with the editor. She has shown huge commitment and professionalism. So, with the indulgence of the House, I extend my congratulations to all those rural journalists who do an exceptional job in speaking up for rural and regional Australia and ensuring that the rest of the country is aware of the challenges in these areas.
I'll conclude my remarks at that. I do hope that, in the course of the debate, we get some expression of urgency from the government to do a better job in making sure the legislation that's brought into the House gets acted upon in a much more timely way, because there are a lot of people outside of here who are dependent on laws proposed by this government to benefit the sector into the years ahead.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Is the amendment seconded?
Dr Leigh: I second the amendment, and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Chifley has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (17:43): I have to say that I'm a little bit deflated and disappointed. I was looking forward with great anticipation to the member for Chifley's address on the Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020. I know that many of my farmers and producers are particularly interested to hear his views on the live sheep trade, as am I, given his strongly held personal view that the trade should be phased out. The Labor Party took a policy of phasing out the live export trade to the last election, and it's my understanding that they still have that policy. Unfortunately, the member for Chifley spent 90 seconds speaking on the bill, and about sheep and lamb in particular, before segueing onto the wine industry, where he obviously felt that he was on much firmer territory.
But in relation to this particular bill, it is a technical amendment to the levies act. The substantive change which allows farmers to sell their lambs as lamb, as opposed to mutton, took place some 12 months ago. This bill directs the levies to the correct channels. The total amount of money doesn't change, and the money ends up with Meat & Livestock Australia to distribute anyway. So it is a technical amendment, but it is important, and of course I commend the bill to the House.
For the benefit of the member for Chifley, if he's back in his office having a look, I'll move on to what this bill is about and what it means for a sheep producer. A lamb, like a human baby, has baby teeth. At around 10 to 11 months, the lamb starts to cut its adult teeth. Traditionally, the minute that you could identify the adult teeth cutting through, the definition of that lamb changed to 'mutton'. Traditionally, again, the lamb price was significantly higher than the mutton price.
This year, that is slightly different—particularly in Western Australia, where there's a great deal of restocking going on, or of sheep being purchased by eastern state breeders for restocking their properties. Well over a million sheep have left Western Australia this year for the east coast to assist those farmers recovering from drought to restock. We've seen some extraordinary prices for breeding ewes, and they're certainly outstripping the lamb price at the moment. That usual price differential just doesn't exist this year, but of course the cycle will turn and it will be very useful for lamb producers that that definition has been moved from the first cutting of the adult teeth to the first wearing of the adult teeth—or 12 months, whichever occurs first. It's a very important change that came in around 12 months ago for sheep and lamb producers.
I did want to talk today about the importance of the live export trade in relation to sheep and lamb, particularly for Western Australian producers, where—
Dr Leigh interjecting—
Mr RICK WILSON: Well, it's in relation to the bill—sheep and lamb. Those lambs are exported live, member for Fenner. If you had any knowledge of the Western Australian sheep industry, you would well know—
Dr Leigh: It's not in the bill!
Mr RICK WILSON: We're here to debate the definition of a 'lamb'. A great deal of concern for me is the need to diversify our markets out of Western Australia. We have a small domestic market for chilled lamb, and we export predominantly to China, which is fine—they've been an excellent market for us—but 48 per cent of our product now goes into China. I think most sound businesses would be thinking that they're getting a little bit top-heavy in the one market and that we need to expand. Of course, one of our longest standing, most important and most loyal markets has been our friends in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, just last week I received a letter—a copy of a letter—from the Widam Food Company, a company which imports chilled meat into the Middle East. They also import live sheep. In October 2019, when I was on a personal trip to Europe, I called in and met the Widam CEO, Mr Al-Marri, and was taken on a tour of their newly installed feedlot and the abattoir they were building that was only weeks away from being commissioned—state-of-the-art facilities built specifically for receiving live sheep and slaughtering them there in the Middle East.
The announcement from Widam that they would be no longer importing Australian chilled meat will have a severe impact on one particular abattoir in my electorate, Hillside Meat Processors, which provides about 12,000 to 15,000 carcasses for the airfreight trade. These are lightweight lambs, member for Fenner, that will now have to find another market. Of course, the market that's there and ready to go, and the exporters that are ready to service it—that's the live sheep trade.
We need to support our exporters. We certainly need to see that product exported out of Western Australia, whether it be as chilled product or live product, but there is demand for the live product, which takes me to the Saudi trade. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the largest importer of live sheep in the world. It imports around eight million head per year from all over North Africa and the Black Sea—countries which don't have anything like the animal welfare protocols and requirements that we do. We have been locked out of that market since 2011 because of some of the protocols that this government sought to impose on the Saudis. But it was with great anticipation that the industry looked forward to the conclusion of negotiations between the Australian government and the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment for some protocols to resume the trade.
These negotiations were concluded in April 2020 and the industry was looking forward to the resumption of the trade. Unfortunately, since then there have been some additional conditions applied by the department of agriculture around the scabby mouth vaccination, which many farmers conduct in the lamb marking cradle. I have done many thousands of lambs myself. What happens is the lambs are restrained in the cradle—they're quite small at that stage of their life—and the vaccine is applied. There's a little vial with a needle and you scratch the lamb—just a little scratch under its armpit—and the vaccine enters the bloodstream and vaccinates the lamb against scabby mouth.
What the department of agriculture has told the live export community—and this has not been asked for by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—is that animals will need to be scratched within 30 days of them going on a boat. For an 18-month-old, 60 kilogram wether, the animal will have to be restrained and scratched within 30 days of going on the boat. In practice, the Scabigard vaccine is actually highly toxic and it's quite dangerous to use. The lambs are restrained in a marking cradle so they can't kick and wriggle, but a 60 kilogram wether would throw me to the floor without a blink and I would probably end up stabbing myself with the needle and giving myself a dose of the Scabigard vaccine, which is highly toxic for humans.
It's a great disappoint to me—and to the rest of the industry—that the ag department has imposed this condition, because it wasn't requested by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There are protocols in place from pre-2011 for dealing with any issues around scabby mouth. I'm sure that the department is concerned about a repeat of the Cormo Express incident of 2003—and none of us wants to see that—but the memorandum of understanding that was signed in 2005 does take account of those sorts of issues and there is a protocol and a series of actions that can take place under those arrangements.
I just want to conclude my comments by coming back to the legislation and saying this has been a great initiative by the government and it makes a real difference in most seasons to the farmer's bottom line. It means that farmers can retain their lambs for a little longer and get them a little heavier—which is actually what the market wants; they want the lambs as heavy as possible—without running the risk that that lamb will be devalued the minute it cuts its lamb's tooth.
I particularly want to commend the government and the minister for that legislation and reform to the industry. I want to remind the House that this is a $4.5 billion industry. There are 31,000 sheep farmers across this nation who benefit from this industry. In the heat of the COVID pandemic, back in March and April, one thing Australians did not have to worry about was whether the farmers of Australia would be able to feed our people and, to a large extent, that was because of the success of our farmers and particularly our sheep and lamb industry. Without any further ado, I commend this legislation to the House and I look forward to the support of the opposition for the bill.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): I thank the member for O'Connor for that very educational speech.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (17:54): The Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020 and the Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020 align the definition of 'lamb', as the member for O'Connor has so well articulated, for the purposes of imposing sheep and lamb custom charges. They bring Australia's definition in line with international competitors, providing a definite signal for producers about when a sheep is no longer a lamb. I won't detain the House on that. I think the member for O'Connor knows much more about that than probably anybody else in the House!
The bills will provide administrative clarity for levy payers and support compliance with the levy scheme through ensuring consistency across relevant legislation in the definition of the animal upon which levies and charges are imposed. That sounds sensible, boring, straightforward, but it has taken this government two years to amend the definition in these bills. These bills are, by any definition, well into 'mutton' territory. I'm therefore grateful to the shadow minister for the second reading amendment, which allows members to bring to the House's attention the government's agriculture inaction over seven years.
I inform the House that a trade deal with Qatar for the export of 1.2 million chilled fat lambs has just fallen over, and I'm yet to hear anything from the minister about it. Qatar was providing an internal subsidy to make Australian chilled fat lamb more affordable for Qatari customers, but it has just ended that arrangement, taking our exporters completely by surprise. They had understood the subsidy was to stay in place until at least 2023. The fear, of course, is that without the subsidy Australia's premium product will be unable to compete in the Qatari marketplace, with much cheaper products from our competitors, including India. Tasmanian Quality Meats in my electorate has been sending 1,500 chilled lambs to Qatar every week for five years. It's been a terrific arrangement for both TQM and Qatari customers. The news comes as TQM starts a $9.5 million upgrade to its Cressy processing facility, increasing its weekly kill capacity from 10,000 to 20,000. I look forward to seeing what agriculture minister, Mr Littleproud, is going to do to repair this obviously fractured relationship with a significant customer of our lamb and sheep trade.
In March 2018, the sheepmeat sector committed to changing the definition of 'lamb' to bring Australia in line with other producing countries. But, of course, it's taken this government this long to legislate anything. That delay has meant real money foregone at the farm gate. Now, here we are again: two years and Sheep Producers Australia has agreed on the revised definition, amending legislation to give effect to this industry supported change. The government's go-slow on this issue is emblematic of its approach to agriculture policy more generally. Country people appreciate the joys of a slower pace than the city, but no-one likes a stalled engine. The government's failures to deal effectively with agriculture policy have done farmers, producers and regional communities no favours. Empty promises, inquiries, reviews—so many reviews!—and piecemeal and ad hoc commitments are a poor return on investment. In Tasmania, more than 10,000 workers dependent on agriculture are asking why the government talks itself up so much but doesn't deliver a lot. As Lord Byron once said, 'Self-praise is no praise at all.'
The government has a goal to increase the nation's agricultural output from $65 billion a year to $100 billion a year by 2030. It's an ambitious goal, made even more ambitious by the events of the past year. It's a goal that Labor supports. But we do scratch our heads at the government's inability to articulate a clear path forward. The National Farmers Federation has provided some ideas that the government should be looking at. The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association says growth and productivity require more attention to a range of areas, including water security, skills and training, biosecurity, R&D, technology and—I know the government hates to admit it—climate change. In fact, it is the government's juvenile insistence on weaponising climate change for its culture wars that is arguably the most significant impediment to the nation achieving the $100 billion goal. Failing to recognise the threat that climate change poses to agriculture means the government is also failing to implement the measures necessary to manage its impacts.
The government's failure has been so manifest that farmers got together in 2015 to form the group Farmers for Climate Action. Now representing more than 3,000 growers across the country, Farmers for Climate Action is demanding change and is articulating practical, achievable ways to implement that change. Key to this is generating $10 million and creating 16,000 jobs from carbon storage, providing a significant income stream for many farmers while also improving our soils.
Labor knows that Australia can and should be a renewable energy superpower. Realising that goal would be good for the nation as a whole but even better for our regions, where much of the renewable energy infrastructure and jobs will be based. With our abundance of renewable energy resources, Australia should be the Saudi Arabia of solar. With wind, pumped hydro, geothermal, hydrogen and biomass added to the mix, backed up by fast emerging battery technology and plenty of run life still in our existing assets, Australia's energy future is bright, and that's good for agriculture. But this government continually fails to harness the potential. It doesn't have the long-term vision that is needed to build and grow a nation. The Liberals' inability to recognise the opportunities arising from meeting the climate change challenge fail the country as a whole. It particularly fails our farmers and Australians living in our regions.
It is years of climate policy failure that have given rise to groups such as Farmers for Climate Action. We are talking about farmers leading the demand for strong climate change action—people living in the regions driving the agenda, because it is the regions that suffer most directly from the impacts of climate change. Let's be clear: anyone who thinks that it's only people living in the inner cities who care about climate change have a few sheep lost in the paddock. Climate change doesn't care if you wear sandals or steel-capped boots. It affects us all, whether we live in the city, the suburbs or the country, but it is country people who are exposed to its impacts most directly—hotter bushfires, dryer droughts, more extreme floods. It's the regions that suffer. It's the regions where people die and where livelihoods and homes and businesses are destroyed. So the requirement to take strong climate change action should never be narrowed to identity politics. Real leadership demands so much more.
In Tasmania, primary industries underpin prosperity across our state's rural and regional communities, particularly in my electorate, which covers half the state's land mass. Labor understands the importance of primary industries and has led the way in transforming the sector. It was a Labor government that started the state's irrigation schemes in collaboration with farmers. These schemes have opened up vast tracts of previously marginal land to high-value production for horticulture and dairy. It was a Labor government that started the state's aquaculture industry, a sector that provides well-paying full-time jobs to hundreds of Tasmanians in regional communities. It was a Labor government that started the state's forestry industry and which is rock solid behind the sector's sustainable growth, particularly in value-add processing. The Liberals make a lot of promises and noise on forestry, but they consistently fail to deliver.
Combined, agriculture, forestry and fishing employ around 16,400 Tasmanians, representing seven per cent of the state's workforce, and they contribute $2.6 billion to the state's economy, accounting for nine per cent of the state's GDP. And, the now broken dry notwithstanding, it's been a few good years to be a Tasmanian farmer. High lamb and mutton prices, coupled with increased output, saw the value of sheepmeat increase by $40 million in 2017-18. Mutton was the saviour for farmers during the 2019 drought, with seven-year-old sheep bringing in $160 to $180 each. It was a cashflow lifeline when farmers needed it most. Cash income of Tasmanian sheep industry farms increased by 47 per cent to $208,000 in 2018-19, mainly due to increased turn-off, higher prices for sheep, lambs and wool, and increased production of grain.
We know already that the quality of Tasmanian produce is second to none. Recently, lamb from Arundel Farm at Macquarie Plains, in the Derwent Valley, in my electorate, was judged among the best in the nation, collecting the gold medal in the From the Paddock category in this year's Harvey Norman Produce Awards. Owned by the Hume family, who have been farming in the Derwent Valley for more than 100 years, Arundel Farm was one of four Tasmanian producers to win a gold medal.
Another big vote of confidence in the quality of Tasmanian produce came early in the year, with premium grass-fed lamb being sold in Coles stores across the country. Under this deal, the retailer is offering Tassie lamb in 800 of its supermarkets for 10 months of the year, expecting to buy 100,000 lambs from 40 Tasmanian producers. Scott, who farms at Blackwood Creek in Tasmania's Northern Midlands, has been supplying Coles for several years and he says the new deal will allow him to expand. It is a similar story for Richard and Bec, from Highbrae Farm at Westwood in the Meander Valley, who are supplying Coopworth Poll Dorset cross lambs into the Coles Graze program. This is a real opportunity for Tasmanian lamb producers, especially considering some of the challenges they have faced over the past 12 months, including the closure of abattoirs in the state and the drier weather through 2019.
Looking forward, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences forecasts the average saleyard price of lamb to fall by nine per cent in 2021 to 734c a kilo and sheep to fall by six per cent to 549c per kilo. ABARES also predicts that the income of lamb producing farms will fall by 12 per cent in 2019-20 because of drought and COVID-19 suppressing international and domestic demand. We have also seen fine wool decline during COVID.
Markets go up and down, the weather is fickle, droughts come and go, but you won't find a more resilient bunch of people than Australian farmers. They can't count on the weather but they should be able to count on good policy from government, a steady hand on the tiller. Instead we've had seven years of stalling, seven years of review after review, seven years of stop-start, seven years of delays, seven years of do-nothing government when it comes to agriculture. Agriculture legislation this government has failed to prioritise includes this bill and the wine amendment bill scheduled for debate soon after. Both bills were brought on by the government at the back end of the parliamentary year, when they had had two years to act. That's the priority this government places on agriculture legislation. Other bills that the government has failed to prioritise includes the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill and the Export Control Legislation Amendment (Certification of Narcotic Exports) Bill. Both were written last year. Where are they?
Then we have the minister's failure to respond in any meaningful way to the $2.6 billion review into RDCs. The report, paid for by taxpayers, was delivered before the election last year. When is the minister going to implement the necessary changes to these important bodies? Farmers need real leadership. That means more than putting on an Akubra and RMs and wandering around the paddock in a checked shirt. Leadership isn't about where you live; it's not about your political pedigree, which boarding school you went to. Leadership is about action, not announcements; it's about delivering solutions, not slogans. On that score, this government and this minister are sadly wanting.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (18:07): The Excise Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020 updates the definition of lamb for the purposes of imposing and collecting primary industry levies and charges to align with the new definition of lamb used for export purposes and by the industry. The bill updates the definition of land across four pieces of legislation: the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 and the Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Act 1999, which authorise the imposition of levies and charges on primary producers, processors and exporters; and the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 and the National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy Act 1998, which authorise the imposition of levies for the purposes of residue testing.
The sheep and lamb industry contributes $4.5 billion to the Australian economy each year, with around 31,000 agricultural businesses involved in sheep and lamb production. The definition of lamb used in Australia for export and industry purposes was changed in July 2019 following a proposal from the sheep and meat processing sectors. Extensive stakeholder consultation on the charge was undertaken by Sheep Producers Australia and the Australian Meat Industry Council. The new definition of lamb is designed to bring Australia's definition into line with our international competitors and provide a definite signal for producers about when a sheep is no longer a lamb.
If these bills are not passed it represents a lost opportunity to reduce regulatory inconsistency for industry and to ensure that the intent of the sheep- and meat-processing industries are reflected in the levies they pay. Updating the definition of lamb used for the purposes of imposing levies and charges to align with the new industry definition will provide administrative clarity for levy payers and will support compliance with levy systems by ensuring consistency across legislation. I commend the bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Chifley has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand as part of the question.
Question agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (18:10): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Customs Charges and Levies Legislation Amendment (Sheep and Lamb) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Third Reading
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (18:12): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
COMMITTEES
Regional Australia Select Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ) (18:12): The Speaker has received advice from the opposition whip that she has nominated Mr Fitzgibbon to be a member of the Select Committee on Regional Australia in place of Ms Swanson.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (18:12): by leave—I move:
That Ms Swanson be discharged from the Select Committee on Regional Australia and that, in her place, Mr Fitzgibbon be appointed a member of the committee.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (18:13): This Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020 concerns insolvency. Legally, if you ask any lawyer, it's the situation where a person—natural or otherwise—is unable to pay their debts as and when they fall due. If you ask a nonlawyer, they'll tell you it's a crisis. It's a crisis for a business, it's a crisis for the family whose livelihood relies on that business and it's a crisis for the people who are owed money by that business. This bill before the House seeks to alter the legal arrangements surrounding small business insolvencies.
Temporary insolvency relief measures have been in place since March this year. Labor has proposed and supported many measures, including relief for directors from personal liability for trading while insolvent; increased thresholds at which a creditor can issue a statutory letter of demand upon a company; and increased thresholds at which creditors can initiate bankruptcy proceedings. These are all measures that have been applied to businesses across the economy. In addition, Labor has proposed and supported measures including the payment of wage subsidies, known as JobKeeper, and has called for and supported measures that have led to bank forbearance in respect of personal and commercial loans owed by businesses. It has called for and supported measures that provide for relief and forbearance by landlords, whether that be rent relief or other arrangements in relation to leases. In addition to that, we have called for and supported relief in relation to utilities bills, such as phone bills, electricity bills and the like.
A lot of these measures either end or start to taper off on 31 December this year. It might surprise many members of this place to learn that, in the midst of the greatest economic downturn since at least the Great Depression but most likely in the past 120 years, insolvencies are actually down—not by a little bit but by a lot. In fact, if you look at the number of insolvencies in May 2020 compared with May 2019, they're down 50 per cent. You might say that's an aberration concerning something that was going on in May, but, if you look at the figures in relation to June, July and August, you will see the same pattern. In fact, in July and August insolvencies are down by 60 per cent compared with the same period in 2019.
That tells us a few things. It tells us that the measures put in place by this parliament and by others are working. Those businesses that, in the midst of a crisis, would have gone to the wall actually haven't. They've either been able to put themselves into hibernation and look after their staff and creditors or been able to trade through this great difficulty. And of course that's a good thing. But something about this just does not ring true. If insolvencies are not just down but down by 50 and 60 per cent on the corresponding period last year, it's quite clear to us that at least a proportion of those businesses have been kept alive when otherwise they probably would not have been, whether through JobKeeper, bank forbearance, relief from paying rent and other payments, protection from action by creditors or the relaxation of arrangements for directors. We know that those insolvencies are going to kick up again.
Just in passing, it's interesting to note that over 55 per cent of insolvency practitioners have, over the period since March, actually been on JobKeeper themselves, because their normal trade has been interrupted. They would normally be dealing with insolvencies and bankruptcies, but that hasn't occurred. It looks like the majority of insolvency practitioners themselves have been on JobKeeper.
So we know there's something very abnormal happening. We know there's going to be big kick-up in insolvencies. The bill seeks to address this issue. We know that for hundreds of thousands of small businesses from coast to coast things have been pretty tough. There's been a lot of uncertainty for them and for their employees. We also know that ventures that were viable and prosperous at the beginning of the year are now, because of the COVID crisis, battling for their very existence. They need help, and Labor intends to support measures that are going to help them. We want to ensure that they get all the help they need. We agree that owners of small and medium businesses should have every chance to return to profitability, to trade out of their difficulties, to deal sensibly and legally with their creditors to ensure that, in the midst of disaster, it's not lose-lose but there is some win-win.
Insolvency processes can be a burden on both those debtors and those creditors in the midst of that crisis. But we also know that changes like this need to be done properly. They can't be rushed through. They have to be adaptable to the reality on the ground. We've found a hell of a lot of legislation that has been pushed through this place in the midst of the crisis hasn't been all perfect. Some of it actually hasn't been all good. A lot of it has had consequences that were either foreseen at the time but ignored by the government or unforeseen at the time and not remedied.
An example of a consequence that was foreseen at the time but ignored by the government was their unwillingness to deal with Labor propositions around the superannuation early access scheme. We knew that the way the government had the scheme put in place was going to leave a big back door open to fraud. Fraud has happened. There are hundreds of Australians who have had their life savings wiped out as a result of fraud that could have been avoided. That's one example; I am sure there are others. So it is absolutely essential that when we're passing legislation designed to deal with the crisis that we put in place mechanisms to ensure that it's well attuned to the crisis at hand but also doesn't saddle us with problems down the track that we will live to regret.
I want to make this point: when you change the rules in an insolvency situation you're always changing the balance of power between creditors on the one hand and those who owe them money. Whenever you do that, somebody is going to be better off than they were prior to the change. So, effectively, we are picking sides when we do that. There is no avoiding it. So this parliament has to get the balance right.
The bill is advanced as a measure to support small businesses. We want to do the sorts of things that are going to support small businesses. But we have to be very, very mindful of this: if we just look at an insolvency situation through the prism of the small business that is insolvent or potentially insolvent then we run the very great risk of ignoring the fact that amongst those people who are owed money are a lot of small businesses as well. So we need to ensure that, whatever we do in this space, we're getting the balance right. There will be unforeseen consequences. I predict there will be some unforeseen consequences with the best will of every member in this place. When we change the balance of power between those who owe money and those to whom money is owed, we are changing a commercial relationship and there will be consequences that we cannot predict today.
It's for this reason that we will be proposing some substantial amendments. They will do nothing to hinder the speed or the ability of the government to implement the changes which it judges to be necessary. Those measures will be legislated. They can go through the parliament this week, with the proviso that our amendments are accepted. Our amendments propose a review of the mechanism and a sunset of the mechanism once we have got beyond the crisis—not immediately. We'll be sensible about this. It's not immediately. This has got a long tail to go through. We know that. Businesses may need to have access to these emergency small-business insolvency provisions for some time. So we are not being reckless about this. We are being very mindful of the circumstances of those small businesses that may owe up to a million dollars and under the existing rules are unable to meet those debts, think they have a plan to trade out of it and want to put in place a new insolvency practitioner to help them to do that to deal honestly and credibly with their creditors and trade out of the business. Who could be against that? Of course we're for it. But we know that we are going through the biggest changes in insolvency provisions in over 30 years. We are moving very, very fast. The lives and livelihoods of thousands of Australians are dependent on us getting it right. A proper look back at how they're working is not only prudent but vital if these laws are to protect the very people that they seek to help: the small businesses of Australia.
It is important to note that this bill does not cover sole traders or partnerships. Some may observe that they're the majority of small businesses. It's not a criticism by the way; it's not a criticism of the bill, it's just observing a simple fact. There may be many of those amongst the pool of creditors. They certainly won't be the majority amongst those who owe money.
Let's have a think about who some of the owners of those small businesses are going to be, the people who are owed money. They will be subcontractors in the building trade. They might be a one-man or a one-woman courier and transport operator. They may be a small supplier to the retail or the restaurant trade. They may be a contractor in the tourism industry—not necessarily in the tourism industry themselves, but they supply goods and services to that industry. We can predict today that these are going to be some of the industries that are reasonably impacted by this.
Of course, it's in their interests that the bigger businesses with whom they trade are able to fight their way out and back to viability. But in the case where that's not going to be possible their interests also need to be considered. Maybe the $10,000 that they're owed by the insolvent business is the difference between whether they continue to trade or whether they go out the door themselves. So it's not as simple as saying: 'Let's just relax the insolvency laws. Let's just put these measures in place, because it's got the name "small business" in the title it is automatically going to be good for every small business in the country.' We're adjusting the relationship between one group of small businesses and another group of small businesses when we adjust these insolvency laws so we want to ensure we get it right.
A lot has been said about these bills somehow being an Aussie version of the chapter 11 insolvency rules. I'm pretty sure you know that that's not the case, Deputy Speaker Zimmerman. They fall somewhat short of that. Some may argue that's a good thing. In practice, what the bill does do is it establishes a new debt-restructuring process for eligible small businesses, which allows company directors a stronger role in the insolvency process—putting together a plan, trading themselves out of the problem. It puts in place a simplified liquidation process for voluntarily winding up an insolvent company. It puts in place an expanded set of situations where documents related to an administration can be provided and signed electronically. It makes sense. We've learnt to do a hell of a lot of things electronically that were thought to be a bridge too far before this crisis. It also establishes a new category of insolvency practitioner for small businesses with a small amount of debt recovery, and this has raised quite a degree of concern: It may work or there may be problems with it. There are a lot of regulations which support this bill—as with so much of the legislation that has come before this parliament during the crisis and before—a thin stream of legislation meandering its way through lush fields of delegated legislation! So it is with this bill, which is all the more reason why we need to have some reasonable caution and put in place some brakes, checks and balances about how this proceeds. A review and a sunset clause in these circumstances make absolute good sense.
We have not reached this position lightly, I have to say. Had we not had the opportunity to talk to small business associations, insolvency practitioners, representatives of unincorporated businesses and the like we might have said, 'This looks good on the face of it', but we have done those things. The bodies that I've just listed have expressed some concerns—some of the accountancy bodies have expressed the same sorts of concerns that we have—which include a lack of clarity in the powers, duties and obligations of different parties in the restructuring process. The concerns include inappropriate individuals potentially being able to be qualified as restructuring practitioners—that's the new qualification that I'm talking about. That's not a reason for us to say, 'Don't pass this bill,' but it is a reason for us to say, 'Let's have a little bit of legislative caution and put in place the checks and balances in the bill itself.' The third concern is the scale of business potentially captured by the eligibility criteria.
Many of these concerns, as I've said, have been raised by stakeholders across different sectors, including the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, major accountancy peak bodies, banks and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. We share their concerns. The consultation process for the bill has been extremely truncated, considering the scale of the changes proposed. One example: stakeholders had five days to make submissions on the exposure draft of the bill, and those submissions are yet to be published. Stakeholders, collective and individual, have raised concerns and they haven't had the ability to meet with a Labor representative. We don't know what their concerns are, because the government, not too keen on transparency in this or any other matter, has not published those submissions. That's just one example.
Much of the detail of the bill, as I've said, will be contained in those lush meadows of regulation that have not yet been finalised. As a result of all of this, it's unlikely that many of the technical issues identified by the stakeholders will have been addressed by the government by the time it passes through this place and the other place, assuming that it will. So, on the basis of that, I foreshadow now that, in the consideration in detail, I'll be moving two substantial amendments—the first being a statutory review and the second being a sunset clause on the provisions before the House. But now, in this second reading stage, I'll be moving an amendment to the question before the House, and I want to go to one particular provision within that second reading amendment. In that provision, you'll understand why we are insisting on a statutory review and you'll understand why we are insisting on a sunset provision. It says that the House:
(2) Calls on the Treasurer to abide by the requirements in Section 588HA of the Corporations Act 2001, which required the Minister to cause an independent review of the safe harbour insolvency provisions inserted into the Corporations Act 2001 by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 to be completed and tabled in parliament by September 2019.
I know you're familiar with that one, Deputy Speaker Zimmerman. Not only was it not tabled in parliament in September 2019; the review wasn't conducted. It goes to the heart of the matter that is before the parliament today. So why is Labor raising these concerns? Above and beyond all of the issues that I have already described, I say that this minister has form. Parliament directed the minister to conduct a review. He didn't. Parliament directed the minister to table that review. He couldn't, because he didn't. So if you want to know why Labor is insisting upon the amendments that I have foreshadowed, it's because this government and this minister have form. We will be insisting on a review. We will be insisting on a sunset clause.
Let me be clear: we support provisions to ensure that viable businesses are able to trade their way out of their difficulties and that viable businesses are able to deal honestly, cogently and credibly with their creditors. But we want to ensure that, in one year, two years or three years down the track, we don't look back and say, 'What the hell have we created here?', because it will be so difficult to unwind, and the government hasn't done what it undertook to do—once again, conduct a review and implement the recommendations of the review.
With those observations in mind, I formally move my second reading amendment and foreshadow that there'll be more to come:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that the Government has:
(a) failed to provide adequate support for ordinary Australian small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a potential wave of insolvencies over the next year; and
(b) rushed through this legislation with limited consultation, providing stakeholders only five days to consider the exposure draft of this legislation; and
(2) calls on the Treasurer to abide by the requirements in Section 588HA of the Corporations Act 2001, which required the Minister to cause an independent review of the safe harbour insolvency provisions inserted into the Corporations Act 2001 by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Act 2017 to be completed and tabled in Parliament by September 2019".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Watts: I'm happy to second the amendment, and I reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (18:35): I'm pleased to speak in favour of the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020. This bill implements the most significant changes to Australia's insolvency framework in almost 30 years and is part of the government's economic recovery plan to keep businesses in business and Australians in jobs. One of my earliest memories as a young lawyer was dealing with some cases of insolvency, and, as the member for Whitlam has correctly pointed out, when companies become insolvent, a lot of people are impacted—the people running the company, obviously, but also their employees and their creditors. And it's always really important to remember that the creditors aren't always the big banks or their big lenders; the creditors can include their trade creditors, and these can be small family businesses as well.
Historically, Australian law in relation to corporate insolvencies prioritised liquidation of a company over its restructuring, and, given that our definition of 'insolvency' is the inability to pay debts as and when they fall due and payable, this traditional approach didn't take account of an insolvent company's longer-term prospects. It didn't take into account its competitiveness, its assets and its brand value, and it was geared towards the premature closure and liquidation of a company. This approach didn't allow for the possibility that, through some restructuring or through some assistance, the company could return to profitability and preserve the interests of creditors. The underlying assumption of the historical approach was that insolvency was the result of deliberate malpractice by companies, and, accordingly, it placed greater emphasis on the protection of creditors.
Thirty years ago, with the introduction of the voluntary administration process, we moved our approach somewhat. We moved the historical approach by incorporating an option which was based on what's referred to as a 'rescue culture', and that is a culture that allows for financially constrained companies to reorganise themselves rather than be forced into liquidation. The underlying assumption of the rescue culture is that insolvency may not be a result of deliberate malpractice and that a second chance for the company could be in the longer-term interests of everyone. Prior to the enactment of the voluntary administration regime, Australia generally had a very poor record of restructuring businesses which would otherwise be quite viable, as it was always difficult to bind all creditors to the arrangements and the directors were exposed to being found guilty of insolvent trading. So the voluntary administration process was enacted to allow more companies to restructure and survive. It was intended to give companies a short period of time to restructure without having to deal with the demands of creditors, landlords, suppliers and other claimants.
The VA process, which was introduced 30 years ago, was a welcome introduction, and it has had some success in achieving its overall aims, but it's also been seen over the last 30 years that it does have some issues. First of all, the complex requirements around voluntary administration in Australia are more suited to large, complex corporate insolvencies. The fact is that the high costs of voluntary administration can also consume most or all of the value of a small business's assets, making it harder for businesses to restructure and reducing the willingness of a small business to engage with the system. Also, voluntary administration involves placing the business under the control of an administrator, which sometimes deters small and family-sized businesses from accessing the process. So the changes that are being introduced in this bill further build on the concept of a rescue culture and will provide for a new option to help small Australian businesses to restructure and increase their chance of surviving the economic impact of the coronavirus. The reforms don't exactly mimic but they draw on features of the US chapter 11 bankruptcy process, which allows small businesses to restructure their debts while remaining in control of their business. The process is available to incorporated businesses with liabilities of less than $1 million, and it will cover around 76 per cent of businesses subject to insolvencies today, 98 per cent of which have fewer than 20 employees.
There are three key features to the reform package. First, while it's similar to the voluntary administration regime, unlike the voluntary administration regime, the new process adopts a debtor-in-possession model, where the small-business owner will remain in control of their business while a debt-restructuring plan is developed and voted on by creditors. The plan will be developed by the business owner in conjunction with an independent small-business-restructuring practitioner. The small-business-restructuring practitioner will have a much more streamlined role and more limited powers than an administrator in a voluntary administration. This reflects the reduced complexity of the new process and the businesses eligible to use it. The role of the practitioner will be to help determine if the company is eligible for this process, to support the company to develop a plan and review its financial affairs, to certify the plan to creditors and, if the plan is approved and endorsed, to manage the disbursements once the plan is in place. A practitioner will not be required to take on personal liability for a company or manage its day-to-day affairs.
It should be noted that, while the plan is being developed, unsecured and some secured creditors will not be able to take enforcement action against the company. The company and the practitioner will have 20 business days to prepare and present the plan, following which creditors will have 15 business days to vote on the plan, including voting on the remuneration of the practitioner. The plan must be supported by over 50 per cent of the creditors, in value, in order to be approved. Notably, any outstanding employee entitlements must be paid out in full before the plan is voted on by creditors. If the plan is not approved, the company can go into either voluntary administration or a streamlined liquidation process.
Safeguards have been put in place to prevent the process from being used to facilitate corporate misconduct such as illegal phoenix activity. They include a bar on the same company or directors using the process more than once within a prescribed period, which is seven years, and the provision of a broad power for the insolvency practitioner to stop the process. Additional mechanisms are also included as part of the restructuring process, to ensure that creditor interests are represented and protected.
Unfortunately, due to the COVID pandemic and recession, not every business is going to survive, so the second part of the package which is in this bill is a new, simplified liquidation pathway for small businesses, to allow faster and lower-cost liquidation, increasing the returns for creditors and for employees. The current regulation around liquidation in Australia, including mandated investigative functions, is suited to large, complex company failure, where intentional misconduct may have been involved. However, most liquidations in Australia relate to relatively small businesses, who overwhelmingly fail honestly. In these cases, the cost of the liquidation can consume all or almost all of the remaining value of a company, leaving little for the creditors.
Under the new liquidation process outlined in this bill, regulatory obligations will be simplified so that they are commensurate to the asset base, the complexity and the risk profile of eligible small businesses. The simplified liquidation process will retain the general framework of the existing liquidation process, with modifications to reduce the time and the cost. As currently occurs, the small business can appoint a liquidator, who will take control of the company and realise the company's remaining assets for distribution to the creditors. The liquidator will also still investigate and report to creditors about the company's affairs and inquire into the failure of the company. Time and cost savings are going to be achieved through reduced investigative requirements, requirements to call meetings and some of the reporting functions.
The third measure introduced by this bill is basically a set of complementary measures to ensure that the insolvency sector can respond effectively, in both the short and the long term, to increased demand and to the needs of small business.
In conclusion, the new restructuring process is aimed at not only enhancing the rate of successful restructuring outcomes but also providing a pathway for distressed small businesses that historically would never have entered into voluntary administration due to the costs and the loss of control associated with that process. As I said at the outset, this bill implements the most significant reforms to Australia's insolvency framework in almost 30 years and is part of the government's economic recovery plan to keep businesses in business and to keep Australians in jobs.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (18:44): Thanks very much for the opportunity to speak on the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020. As the member for Curtin and others, including my friend and colleague the member for Whitlam, have noted in their contributions, a properly functioning insolvency regime is critical to ensuring that funds flow properly in Australia and gives lenders, borrowers and creditors the confidence to do business and support each other. We have seen relief provided during the peak of this crisis with the temporary relaxation of rules related to trading while insolvent.
This arrangement recognised the depth, the magnitude and the seriousness of the crisis that we are in; it recognised the temporary restrictions that were placed on business and the difficult situation that many businesses were in; and it gave directors some relief from civil penalties for trading while insolvent. These were only temporary arrangements, and the government has since announced the measures in this bill before us now, which aim to provide a more streamlined insolvency process for small business. The key features of the bill are the implementation of a new debt-restructuring process for small incorporated companies and a new streamlined liquidation pathway for small incorporated companies.
The new debt restructuring process provides a debtor-in-possession model, which will allow small business owners to retain control of their businesses while implementing a restructuring plan that's been agreed by their creditors. These plans will be developed in conjunction with a new category of independent small-business restructuring practitioner.
The government also says it's introduced safeguards to prevent the process from being used for corporate phoenixing, which is very important—it's a practice that's estimated to cost Australians up to $5 billion every year. The bill also introduces a new simplified liquidation pathway for small businesses, designed to reduce the costs of winding up businesses that will not survive.
In summary, the bill implements significant reforms to the Australian insolvency framework—reforms which the government says will help Australian small businesses restructure following the COVID-19 pandemic. There's no more important time for the government to be providing support to small businesses. It's crucial that distressed businesses have access to the right processes and structures necessary to reboot their businesses or, if necessary, to wind down their operations in an orderly manner. It's clear that not all businesses will survive to the other side of this crisis. To the extent that we can appropriately help some of those restructure their business and emerge on the other side, we, on this side of the House, obviously support that as well. But we need to remember that not all small businesses can access these provisions, and some may actually be worse off.
Most Australian small businesses are sole traders or partnerships, and they won't benefit from changes to the Corporations Act to make restructuring their debts easier. Indeed, in lots of ways, they have the most to lose. As we've seen so many times, when restructuring or insolvency goes wrong, it's frequently small businesses and subcontractors who end up holding unpaid invoices. So, for an ordinary tradie who works as a subcontractor to a larger business, a poorly run insolvency process can lead to disaster for them. Sole traders may be left struggling to meet payments on their house or to put food on the table for their family. We need to be conscious and cognisant of that part of the small-business community in particular.
That's why we'll be moving amendments to this bill to ensure that there is a review process and a sunset clause in place—not because we disagree with the idea of streamlined insolvency and restructuring but because we know the stakes are so high if this insolvency process is wrong.
The government's claiming these reforms are the most significant for insolvency in 30 years, and yet they appear to have been implemented with very limited consultation. Treasury only had the exposure draft legislation up on their website for five days. When you consider the magnitude of what we're thinking about here, that's clearly not good enough. We still haven't seen submissions in relation to this legislation. We've done a lot of consultation of our own, though. We know that there is anxiety about the lack of consultation, and people are worried about the detail of the draft laws that are before us.
Labor support the sensible reform of these laws. We want small businesses to have the support and structures they need. But, time and time again, we've seen in this place the big announcement, the rushed through legislation, and the subsequent issues that emerge because there hasn't been enough consultation and there hasn't been enough consideration of the detail. That's why we think a sunset clause is necessary, to ensure these changes aren't locked in without an appropriate review. A requirement for review on its own is not sufficient, given the government keeps missing legislative requirements for reviews. Our amendments will ensure that these very significant changes to the Corporations Act are appropriately reviewed and considered before being made permanent.
Overall, we are supportive in principle of these changes. We support small business. We support them not just in word, but in deed. That's why we have been fighting, for example, for the JobKeeper payment not to be cut prematurely, because 1.5 million Australian workers and, I think, 400,000 Australian businesses are still relying very heavily on JobKeeper. If you want to support small business, you can do something about insolvency, but you should also do something to ensure that you don't pull the rug out from under small businesses before they're ready to go out again.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (18:51): I rise to support the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020—reforms that will be the most significant in our nation's insolvency framework for three decades. These are reforms that are imperative for small business who have faced financial stress this year due to the COVID pandemic. These reforms complement the Morrison government's JobMaker plan to ensure Australia emerges from the pandemic stronger, more resilient and competitive in our global economy.
Since the beginning of COVID, the Australian government has provided unprecedented levels of economic support for families and for the 27,000 small businesses in my electorate of Higgins. This support has included a range of economic measures. Tax relief measures of up to $2,745 have already passed parliament. Temporary tax incentives will allow 29,000 businesses in Higgins to write off the full value of any eligible asset they purchase to support new investment and, importantly, increase business cashflow. We've also supported the JobKeeper payments, which have supported 8,600 businesses in Higgins, to keep employees connected to their employers. The cashflow boost has also helped 6,300 small and medium businesses provide payments to help them stay afloat.
This bill forms part of the next phase of our economic recovery plan for small businesses. We need to keep small businesses in business so that Australia can stay in business. The Morrison government's reforms will help small businesses like those in my electorate of Higgins, many of which have had to incur significant debt. And we need to help make sure they can restructure and survive the devastating impacts of COVID.
In 2015, the Productivity Commission reported that almost 60 per cent of companies that enter voluntary administration are deregistered within three years. Accordingly, the new restructuring process that forms part of this bill is aimed at enhancing the rate of successful restructuring whilst providing a clear pathway for distressed small businesses that historically would never have entered voluntary administration due to the costs and the loss of control associated with this process. Where restructure is not possible, businesses will be supported to wind up faster, enabling greater returns for creditors and for employees to be paid fairly. These changes will introduce new processes suitable for small businesses from 1 January next year, reducing the complexity, time and cost burdens for small businesses. Our reforms will cover roughly 76 per cent of businesses subject to insolvencies today, 98 per cent of which have fewer than 20 employees.
Our insolvency system is facing challenges. There is an ever-increasing number of small businesses that are now financially distressed due to the severity of the COVID crisis. This can be seen very clearly in my home state of Victoria after very long and deep lockdowns that unfortunately had to be undertaken due to the failings of the state government with regard to hotel quarantining and contact tracing. The one-size-fits-all approach, which imposes unfair duties and obligations on business regardless of their size and administration, is no longer suitable; the current requirements are more suited to large, complex company insolvencies. That is why this bill is so important—so small businesses can prevent prolonged distress and begin the process of engaging with the insolvency system early if needs be. I've spoken to so many small businesses in Higgins and I know that what they want is simplicity and flexibility.
The reforms draw upon key features from chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States, which helps small businesses restructure and survive the economic impact of COVID. It is critical that our economy begins to recover and that businesses have flexibility to either restructure or wind down their operations in an orderly manner. Key elements of the reform in this bill include the introduction of a new debt restructuring process for incorporated businesses with liabilities of less than $1 million. We're moving from an inflexible, one-size-fits-all creditor-in-possession model to a more flexible debtor-in-possession model. This will allow small businesses to restructure their existing debts and continue trading under the control of their owners who know the business best. Accelerating the period to 20 days for the development of a restructuring plan by a small business restructuring practitioner, followed by 15 business days for creditors to vote on the plan, is another reform that will be very helpful to the sector. A new and simplified liquidation pathway for small businesses to allow faster and lower-cost liquidation is another measure that will be helpful to this area. Complementary measures to ensure the insolvency sector can respond effectively, both in the short and long term, to increased demand and to meet the needs of small businesses is one thing that we've heard about from the sector with regard to how to deal with the financial stresses that they are facing.
Our government understands that it will take time for practitioners to familiarise themselves with the new processes and to register as a small business restructuring practitioner. This will mean that not all small businesses will be able to access the process immediately on 1 January 2021. To address this transitional issue, an eligible small business will be able to declare to its creditors, through ASIC's published notices website, its intention to access the restructuring process. Our government is preparing to support the expected increase in the number of companies being put into external administration as the temporary relief measures expire at the end of December. The reforms in this bill will help those businesses to successfully get to the other side of the crisis. It is imperative we support them through this very tough and challenging time. I know the measures that we've announced to date have had a positive impact; they've allowed businesses to weather the storm. What we will do now is help them to move past the storm. Importantly, there are safeguards which will be implemented to prevent the process being used to facilitate corporate misconduct such as illegal phoenix activity. Phoenix activity is whereby a company is liquidated or abandoned to avoid paying its debt and a new company is then started to continue the same business activities without those debts. Obviously, that is something we wish to avoid as a government. These provisions include a prohibition on related creditors from voting on a restructuring plan, a bar on the same company directors using the same process more than once within a prescribed period, which is proposed to be seven years, and the power for a practitioner to stop the process where misconduct is identified.
Our government has been on the front foot from day one of this global pandemic. We've supported everyday Australians and small businesses to get to the other side of this crisis. On 22 March, our government announced temporary measures to help financially distressed businesses through JobKeeper and JobSeeker. I've never met a person who hasn't seen them as incredibly important economic measures, and it's broadly understood by the Australian public that these were very necessary steps to take. On 7 September, we announced a further extension of these support measures, which I know businesses in my community have greatly appreciated and utilised. The reforms in this bill will reposition our insolvency system to reduce costs for small businesses and to reduce the time they spend during that process. Ultimately, this will lead to greater economic resilience.
We know small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. We also know that this has been an unprecedented crisis. The Australian public knows we have their back and the Australian public knows that we're responsible when it comes to economic measures. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (19:00): I rise today to speak in favour of the second reading amendment to the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill 2020 and the proposed substantive amendments which the member for Whitlam referred to during his earlier contribution.
As the member for Whitlam and the member for Rankin both indicated, we support the key measures contained in this bill in principle. But for a number of reasons, including those referenced in speeches given by those opposite, including the member for Curtin and the member for Higgins, about the importance of these reforms we believe that it's appropriate that there be a statutory review included in the bill. We also believe that it's appropriate that there be a sunset clause.
Before commenting on the provisions in this bill and our approach to it, I just want to set out very briefly the fact that this bill has three main elements. Firstly, there is the new debt-restructuring process for eligible small companies which allows company directors a stronger role in the process. Secondly, there is a simplified liquidation process for voluntary winding up of insolvent companies and, thirdly, there is an expanded set of situations where documents related to administration can be provided and signed electronically.
As earlier speakers on this side of the House have indicated—and the member for Whitlam ran through a number of measures in some detail—over a number of years the ALP has supported improvements and strengthening of insolvency provisions, so we are very supportive of insolvency provisions that are suitable and which are as appropriate as possible, given the circumstances. In addition to that, in the current circumstances where, obviously, there has been a severe economic downturn in recent months as a result of COVID, we have supported a range of measures, including loan flexibility and of course, as a number of earlier speakers indicated, JobKeeper. We called for that for quite some time before the government finally embraced it as a measure. All of these different measures have interacted in ways that have made it more possible for companies to keep going as long as possible for the benefit of creditors, for the benefit of the owners of those companies and for the benefit of employees. So we have supported any number of measures over the years in relation to insolvency regulations specifically, but also a number measures over recent months to help companies, whether they be large or small, to get through this very difficult period.
I just want to make an observation—and, again, the member for Whitlam touched on this earlier—that insolvency is one of the more complex areas of financial regulation, involving, at its core, a set of balanced interests. On occasions, those interests can be conflicting. There are occasions where it's in the interest of a range of different stakeholders for a company to continue trading and to try to get through its situation, but there can be situations which one might describe as zero-sum. If one looks at all of the stakeholders in a situation where insolvency is imminent and where a company might be in serious trouble, one can quickly reel off a significant number of stakeholders. Obviously, there are the creditors; there are the owners of the company; the employees will have a significant stake, not just in the company and whether it survives or not but often in the way in which a company might fail and what impact that might have on their benefits; and then of course there's the broader public good. This is clearly an area where there are externalities and where the way in which companies trade and their prospects for survival during broader economic downturns have an impact on other companies.
Again, to make reference to a situation that other speakers on my side have already made reference to, if you have a regulatory system that tries to give more space to companies to trade out of situations in which they're facing difficulty then of course the other side of that ledger is that companies facing difficulty are going to accrue more debts. If it turns out that they can't pay those debts, the other side of that transaction is going to suffer some harm as a result. This is all a matter of balancing interests, of risk assessment and, ultimately, one would hope, setting up a regulatory arrangement that is for the greater good. But it is the inherent complexity of all of this, the inherent balancing of sometimes-competing interests, that should make us very cautious—doubly so, given that both speakers opposite, the member for Curtin and the member for Higgins, have given very persuasive indications that this is a major set of reforms. Indeed, both of them indicated that this is the most significant proposed set of reforms in relation to insolvency law for three decades. That should make us doubly cautious, given both the magnitude of the reforms and the fact that they relate to something so inherently complex and sensitive.
We can all reel off a number of regulatory principles that we believe should be applied, such as transparency and consistency—consistency on one hand yet, on the other, treating different entities differently where that makes sense—and flexibility, while at the same time providing protections. Again, we can imagine a whole range of different regulatory objectives that one might balance in different ways. I think the member for Curtin gave a very interesting example of that, where the laws were reformed some decades ago to give greater emphasis to allowing survivorship. But, again, any changes of that nature in the regulatory balances embedded in the system have to be undertaken in a very cautious way so as not to lead to unintended consequences.
What are some of the unintended consequences? Well, one that we think is material is that the risk of illegal phoenixing might be affected by poorly designed regulation. As other speakers have indicated already, a number of elements of this consultation process occurred over a handful of days. The fact that this is a significant risk is something that we believe should make parliament cautious. As all of us in this place know, illegal phoenixing has the potential to cause serious harm to vulnerable individuals. The cost to business is significant. Some have estimated that it is between $1.1 billion and $3.1 billion. The cost to employees through lost, unpaid entitlements is somewhere between $31 million and $298 million, and the cost to government from unpaid taxes is well over $1½ billion by some estimates. Of course, some of these estimates are difficult to pin down because of the very nature of the phenomenon that we're talking about.
That's one example. Another example of a regulatory risk is eligibility. It is true to say that all of us in this place want to give small companies more of a chance to survive where that makes sense; of course we want to see that. But when we draw eligibility lines, we necessarily put some companies on one side of that line and some companies on the other. We also need to understand that many Australian small businesses are sole traders and partnerships and won't benefit from changes to the Corporations Act to make restructuring their debts easier. Again, we need to be very conscious that, while eligibility lines must be drawn, where those lines are drawn is going to have serious implications, particularly, as I referred to earlier, in a world of zero-sum games, potentially. That's another dimension of this regulatory suite that we need to be very cautious about.
There are a whole range of stakeholders who understand the complexity of what we're talking about. There's the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association as well as the major accountancy firms, the major accountancy peak bodies, the banks and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Many of these bodies, these stakeholders, have expressed serious concerns about the process. That in and of itself should make us very cautious.
The sensible thing that we are proposing here is that, in light of these concerns, in light of the fact that there is a material risk of unintended consequences, a sunset clause and a statutory review are entirely appropriate. As the member for Whitlam indicated when making reference to his second reading amendment, a statutory review is essential given that in this area this government has shown a willingness to not undertake reviews when not compelled by statutory provisions. So we are, for that reason, going to insist on a statutory review in this case.
I will go to a couple of comments, and there are many, many comments I could go to. Ryan Lennon of Kott Gunning Lawyers said:
In perhaps the clearest display of the haste with which these reforms were prepared, and are being enacted, the period for submission from the "insolvency industry" was effectively two days …
A number of speakers have talked about different elements of this process being what one can only say was rushed. I go back to contributions made by the member for Curtin and the member for Higgins. Both of them said, 'This is the most significant reform in this area for 30 years.' Yes, of course, we want to see reforms go through this parliament which make it easier for businesses to survive where they can. We want to see reforms which promote jobs growth. But if those opposite, on one hand, are saying this is the biggest reform for three decades and we have serious stakeholders, on the other, saying, 'We were given a handful of days to days to respond,' at the very least that raises concerns about potential unintended consequences in a very complicated piece of legislation.
Some opposite made reference to the fact that this has parallels with chapter 11 provisions. The Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association said that any parallels drawn with chapter 11 provisions show that whoever made those parallels doesn't know what they are talking about. That's concerning, because I think the Treasurer has, on occasion, made that parallel. So, again, these are reasons we should perhaps be more cautious than the bill as currently formulated is.
It has been a rushed consultation process. Stakeholders had only five days to make submissions on the exposure draft of the bill. Five days for something this complex, this momentous, is not enough. As the member for Whitlam pointed out earlier, so much of the detail of what we're going to see is going to be in the regs. This is something we see as a somewhat concerning trend in a number of areas of regulation. Given the complexity of this reform and how serious it is, if there is a lot of detail in the regs it only reinforces the appropriateness of a statutory review and a sunset clause. The fact that so much of the detail is not going to be seen by this parliament when we vote on this bill reinforces the need for this parliament to insist upon additional protection.
We support in principle what this bill is trying to achieve, but we need to acknowledge that insolvency is an area of regulation that is inherently complex. It inherently involves trading off different interests. Of course, while all of us in this place can say that we want more jobs and we can all say that we want firms that have a good prospect of surviving to have an opportunity to survive, we also need to acknowledge that when you tweak insolvency laws it has impacts on other stakeholders. It doesn't just impact on the entity you're trying to help. For that reason, we need to be cautious. We need to be more cautious than how this bill is currently formulated. This government needs to be sensible. We have indicated we're supportive in principle of what it's trying to do here, but this government needs to be sensible and accept a couple of very modest and appropriate amendments and to basically provide this parliament with a guarantee that there will be a review and an appropriate sunset clause.
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (19:14): The Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Bill is a phenomenon that has come out of the COVID-19 crisis. COVID-19 has changed everything in Australia, in a way, but nothing has been as dramatic as the rapid rise in unemployment and, I'm pleased to say, the rapid return of employment as the COVID restrictions are lifted. When the crisis first hit, a lot of things were done which, in the history of the nation, will go down as quite amazing. Not only was JobKeeper, which everyone is familiar with, introduced but the initiative to improve cash flow by rebating PAYE taxes kept a lot of companies functioning by basically giving them tax relief. These were two great reforms.
This insolvency reform, which has borrowed things from the US chapter 11 bankruptcy measures, has also been born out of the COVID-19 crisis. We were potentially faced with many more businesses falling over and being liquidated, and it was quite an appropriate response. The change in this is that the debtor, rather than the creditors, is in possession of the business. For those of you that haven't been through or seen someone go through an insolvency or a liquidation, that is quite a major change. But there are certain caveats to it, and I will go through some of those later.
Having been around a regional town that's been through boom and bust and having known many tradesmen and businesspeople, I know it's sometimes a bit of a bloodbath. When a business is failing, there are people called unsecured creditors—often tradesmen who may be sole traders or in a partnership—and they get left behind in the wake. Many businesses that are on the road to collapse get put into forced administration or into a liquidation process, and the liquidation process and the fire sales that happen mean that, rather than coming out with something, they exit with nothing. They're in negative territory, and there's a knock-on down the chain to all the subcontractors and other people, who also go under as a result. I was really pleased to see that the directors of businesses won't be able to take up these provisions if phoenixing of their business is involved, or if they've done that before, or if the companies are currently undergoing restructuring or have been through restructuring once in the last seven years.
The process up to now has been directors have been given relief by section 588G(2) of the Corporations Act so they can't be charged with trading whilst insolvent. This legislation is to try and formalise it going forward from January next year. It's really important to note that a lot of wise heads have looked at this and put some common-sense things in. Other speakers have mentioned the need to have skilled and appropriately qualified small-business-restructuring practitioners. I know some accountants and financial advisers have moved into those roles, but you actually have to have been registered as a liquidator to be able to do it. I know there are many people who have made a profession out of restructuring and saving businesses, and there are some, unfortunately, for whom the liquidation process has been like vultures cleaning out and taking the last meat off the bones of a failed company. It is distressing when that happens.
Hopefully, if the company are allowed to declare, 'We're drowning; we 've got problems; we might go under,' they can get a sort of time-out, call in a qualified restructuring practitioner, notify their creditors and then go through a 20-working-day process of deciding how they're going to get out of the situation and take steps so that they don't submerge, they get their sales up and they trade out of it—particularly as the trigger for a lot of this was COVID-19, which isn't a normal business phenomenon. Something like this happens every hundred years, and a lot of good businesses wouldn't have even been contemplating this if COVID hadn't come along. That's why I said these changes are born out of the phenomenon that we have in front of us. After this 20-working-day restructuring plan has been worked through, there's another 15 days of analysis by creditors. The creditors still get a say in it, obviously. Secured creditors haven't lost their security, by the way. Unsecured creditors, the fine details of that, would be worked out with the small business restructuring practitioner and the applicable laws.
Overall, I think this is a good initiative, because we will save a lot of inherently good businesses that have had a short-term interruption to normal business, not normal flow of credit. A lot of people think that businesses, particularly in the construction game, do it because they've got a whole bundle of money piled up, just sitting there, waiting to be spent on building X, Y or Z. But, like lots of construction projects, it relies on credit and it relies on drawing down progress payments from your creditors and, at the same time, making future sales and getting the building done on time and having the people who have signed up to purchase or to lease, then, giving you cash flow. If that's interrupted—say, a government body is holding back taxes or has put a claim on you, for any reason—that can bring mighty empires down.
I've seen it in my area and I've seen it in the big smoke. One of the biggest construction companies in the country that's been around forever has had problems. Reading the financial pages, it appears that they had a problem getting some money that they deemed was owed to them by another level of government. So people have to realise that credit and money running through a business is like blood running through us. If the circulation fails, all things can come unstuck. We had the big daddy of them all. We had COVID-19. So these chapter 11 concepts that we have married with our pretty sound and solid insolvency rules, I think will be a good thing.
I support the bill. I think it will be good. We will keep a watching brief on it. I suspect most of the people in the House have the same opinion as me: we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater but we want to give these businesses a chance to trade their way out of COVID-19 and go on to flourish and keep all those people employed. Most of the businesses are small businesses that will be eligible for this. If they've got liabilities greater than a million dollars, no can do; it's back to regular rules. A lot of these small businesses know their business better than any liquidator and most administrators, and, giving a pause in proceedings, I think, will let many of them—not all of them—get through to the other side and go on to flourish. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (19:23): Everyone knows how hard this pandemic has hit small businesses. There are many people who have worked their entire lives to build up a family business, who have never taken a cent in support payments from the government, who have found themselves not only needing support—it might have been through JobKeeper; it might have been through some of the cashflow measures—but also, sadly, losing their business and needing support in the form of unemployment benefits. We also know that as the government withdraws supports like JobKeeper more businesses are going to hit the wall. We are concerned that, at the end of this month, an avalanche of insolvencies are expected to hit at the end of the regulatory freeze on bankruptcies. That is a human story and a human tragedy for so many people who have put their heart and soul into their business. As speakers before me have said, Labor is supportive, and I'm supportive of this government working to help small businesses, in particular, get through this period if they can.
The Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer announced in September what they described as US chapter 11-style insolvency reforms, changes to see small businesses at risk of collapse able to keep trading and work out their problems with a small-business-restructuring practitioner instead of appointing an administrator. Whilst on paper this may be a good idea, and perhaps ultimately it may work, the great concern is that this is another example of a photo opportunity without follow-through, of an announcement that sounds like it might address a really significant problem but turns out not to be based on the hard policy work having been done.
One of the significant concerns for my electorate of Dunkley is that the majority of small businesses aren't eligible for these reforms. These measures are only for incorporated businesses, which means that sole traders, partnerships and family businesses structured in other non-incorporated ways will miss out. I can tell this House that I had almost an avalanche of inquiries into my office early on when the government finally decided to bring in wage subsidies in the form of JobKeeper, particularly from sole traders and partnerships who were going to be left out. This is not a small cohort of small businesses in this country. It's a significant cohort of people, a significant cohort of families who need to pay the bills, who need to pay their mortgages, who have debts that have racked up because they've tried to keep their business going, notwithstanding that they may have been eligible for JobKeeper. They are likely to miss out, with the way that this legislation and this scheme are structured.
There is also the concern that the changes could just push the insolvency issue further down the supply chain to other small businesses and sole traders. One of the big concerns, particularly in my electorate, is whether or not this will actually be a negative for the tradies, for the trades men and women who have set up their own businesses and who usually work as subcontractors on larger projects, on credit for other businesses. They often work on housing projects and expect to be paid at the end of it, but the pandemic crisis has hit, and they haven't been paid. Will this legislation and this process mean that they will get their money, or will sole traders, partnerships and family businesses just be left out in the cold? Will they be able to get the unpaid invoices paid? If they can't, they're the people that are going to continue to struggle to pay the bills to keep their families afloat.
The plight of subcontractors, particularly in the construction and building industry, as I said, is something that is right at the heart of many of the suburbs in my electorate where trades men and women work for themselves. It was too often the case before the pandemic that we would see a tradie working as a subbie to a larger business and ending up out of pocket when that larger business either failed or disappeared without paying their bills, when they pocketed the fees for the contract but didn't pass it down to the small businesses below them. This was always a concern before the pandemic, and we're worried that it will be a greater concern now.
That's why I was proud that the Labor Party took to the last election a commitment to a tradies guarantee for cascading trusts, to make sure that those hardworking trades men and women who work on large projects as subcontractors can be guaranteed that, at the end of the day, no matter what the head contractor does, they will get paid for their work. This was a policy based on a review called the Murray review. That review, amongst a number of things, identified that 22 per cent of all insolvency events happened in the construction sector, with 1½ thousand construction companies entering into external administration in 2016-17 alone. This is something that the federal government can and should be looking at to help subcontractors. The federal government, through its procurement policy, has the ability to put in place cascading statutory trusts to make sure that—
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER (19:30): It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Winston, Mr Robert 'Bob' Wilson
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (19:30): Tonight I want to talk about a friend of mine, a constituent who did a remarkable thing 51 years ago. He put his life at risk to save the lives of others. The event I'm talking about occurred on 3 June 1969. The HMAS Melbourne and the USS Frank E. Evans were participating in a naval exercise in the South China Sea. The Melbourne was one of 40 ships from six nations taking part in the exercise. At 3 am, after being ordered to a new escort station, the Evans sailed under the Melbourne's bow. It was cut in two and, sadly, 74 of the Evans crew perished. It was the second time the Melbourne had struck another vessel and, to this day, the Melbourne remains the only Commonwealth naval vessel to sink two friendly warships in a collision. The Melbourne-Evans disaster had a huge impact on the Australian Navy, even though the aircraft carrier was subsequently found not to have been at fault in the incident.
The gentleman I am talking about is Robert 'Bob' Wilson Winston. He lives in Dapto and he showed enormous bravery and risked his own life that night. At the time, Bob was one of two landing signal officers. His main role was to scribe and check the aircraft to ensure that everything was correct and ready for landing—a crucial role on any naval ship. He was only 21 years old at the time. On the night of the collision, Bob came off watch at around 1.30 in the morning. When the ship collided, Bob was thrown out of his bed. He witnessed the front section of the ship being ripped apart. He headed to the flight deck and, within minutes, the front section of the Evans went below the waterline. Reports say this happened within three minutes. It was on the flight deck that Bob first heard the cries for help. Within seconds, he was pulling an American crew member from the rubble and had him on a stretcher. It was on the flight deck that he noticed the back section of the Evans was going down on the Melbourne's starboard side. He jumped onto the stern of the Evans and tied the ship to the Melbourne. He then went down to the ship's quarterdeck and began to move crewmembers onto the Melbourne.
After getting a number of American crew members to safety, Bob then proceeded to search the first deck for survivors. He personally conducted a search of all accessible command compartments in order to check that all USN survivors had been taken to safety. He did not leave the Evans until he was ordered to do so by Lieutenant Commander Patterson. Mr Winston and Lieutenant Patterson were the last two men to leave the ship. Bob said that, throughout the entire ordeal, he was only given one order and that was to leave the sinking ship. He acted on instinct to save his fellow men and he was the first aboard the Evans. Throughout the entire rescue operation, Bob showed complete disregard for his own safety and displayed an outstanding initiative. As a result, he received the Queen's Commendation for Brave Conduct.
Footage of the aftermath of the event showed pure destruction and carnage. When recounting the event, other Navy personnel talk about how the night sky lit up, to the point where it was just like daylight. All survivors were rescued within an hour of the disaster, but the search continued for 15 hours. Throughout the search, body parts began to float to the surface. Nobody should have to see that.
Bob is concerned that the current Defence records do not correctly reflect the incidents of 3 June 1969. According to Mr Winston, the current records state that he was the second individual to act and jump across to the USS Frank E. Evans. He disputes this. He says he was the first there. I believe him. Mr Winston has one request which is very straightforward, and that is that the Navy correct his record so that it accurately reflects what happened on that fateful evening 51 years ago. If this happens, it won't be the first time that the HMAS Melbourne incident is revisited and reviewed. Commanding officer Captain Stevenson was originally blamed for the disaster. He was publicly made a scapegoat for the incident. Minister for Defence Stephen Smith later officially apologised to Captain Stevenson and stated that the captain was unfairly treated.
I've written to the minister and asked that the Navy review the record of my friend Bob Winston to ensure that it correctly reflects exactly what went on that night and his role within it.
Australia-China Relations
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (19:35): The Prime Minister spoke on behalf of all Australians last week when he condemned the highly offensive and false image published by a senior official of the People's Republic of China, the PRC. There's been much media coverage since, so I don't plan to add my own personal commentary, but incidents like last week's do give rise to something else: the need for national unity.
The Australia-China relationship is under strain. As we tackle the challenges that lie ahead, it is important we do so from a position of strength. A part of that strength is our unity as a nation—unity that we require on three fronts. First, politically, the Liberal-National government and the Labor opposition should be as one when it comes to addressing the China question. There have been conflicting messages from the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow ministry since last week. But I believe the thinking members of the Labor Party know what's at stake here, and I encourage them to impress upon their leadership the need for bipartisanship when it comes to addressing the China question.
Second, we need unity between government and business. Politics and economics are intertwined. In a free market, liberal democracy, we keep government and business separated. We know, in China, they are steered by the one hand. What we must guard against is economic coercion that pits government against business where our own system risks being used against us. Can I assure the business community in Australia that, here in Canberra, we absolutely get it. The punitive trade measures being imposed by the PRC are part of a larger game. There are times, for reasons of diplomacy, that the language coming out of Canberra may seem more circumspect than you think warranted. But I assure you that we understand what's going on and, to those businesses most impacted, you are not alone. Your government is looking, and continues to look, at ways where we can assist.
We are of course ensuring—as best we can—that the international rules of trade are honoured, that we take action against unfair practices, that we work with industry to diversify markets, that we activate existing free trade agreements and negotiate new ones, and that we build stronger supply chains and improve our sovereign capabilities. But, as businesses, if you think we're missing the point, if you think there's something we should be doing better—we are a democracy—please proactively engage with your own members of parliament. We're on your side, and only by working together can we navigate our way through the current issues.
Third, we need unity among the Australian people—in particular, with the Chinese-Australian community. I reject any attempt on behalf of the PRC to expand the notion of sovereignty beyond territoriality or nationality to include claims based on ethnicity or ancestry. In other words, the PRC does not speak for our 1.2 million Chinese Australians. To all Chinese Australians, I say that the actions of the PRC do not diminish you or the respect that we, your fellow Australians, have for you. You are immensely important members of our local communities and of our nation. When the Australia-China relationship is strained, that can be particularly difficult for Chinese Australians. That is why the rest of us, who do not have a Chinese background, stand shoulder to shoulder with the Chinese-Australian community.
I believe that the greatest challenge we face as a nation is not COVID-19. The greatest challenge we face as a nation is how we address the China question. While a definitive answer to that question may seem elusive at times, there's one thing about which we can be certain: the more we are united as a nation, the more we can tackle the challenges before us from a position of strength.
Cooper Electorate: COVID-19
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (19:40): One of my favourite quotes to remember in a crisis is to 'look for the helpers'; you will always find people who are helping. During 2020, indisputably one of the worst years in decades, I've been so proud to see helpers everywhere in Cooper. Firstly, to the North East Neighbourhood House Network and the many not-for-profits—the Bridge at Darebin, Reservoir Neighbourhood House, Jika Jika Community Centre, Preston Rotary, Diverse, the Salvos, the Northern Community Church and so many more: you are the backbone of our community but this year you have just gone above and beyond. When the pandemic hit, you pulled together and organised emergency food relief, providing over 40,000 meals. Believe me when I say that you saved lives this year. You were the safety net that caught people, and you wrapped the arms of community around everyone.
This year, we also learnt whose work is absolutely essential to keep society turning: the retail workers, truckies, emergency relief workers, posties and all of those who put themselves at risk to keep us all going. We are indebted to you. To the healthcare workers—doctors, nurses, carers in nursing homes and allied health professionals—I can't imagine the year you've had. I'm sure many of you are experiencing trauma from what you've witnessed as the pandemic swept through. Please, look after yourselves. To the groups that represent our culturally diverse communities: thank you for working so hard to keep the ties of community strong during the pandemic. To the teachers of Cooper: what you've had to conquer is immeasurable. As a mother of teachers, as a grandmother and as a citizen with hopes for our future generations, I say thank you. Enjoy the pending holidays!
To all our sporting heroes who have been keeping community sport alive: it's been so tough. But I came across so many parents and coaches in my daily walks in the park using their one hour of exercise to throw a ball to a kid's bat, kick a soccer ball around or boot a footy, just to keep skills up. Community sport is run by volunteers, by parents who are determined to give their kids a healthy and joyous outlet. We will be back in force next year, I know it. And I can't wait to get out and cheer my lungs out from the sidelines in support and appreciation.
To our First Nations elders and community leaders: the great health outcomes your communities maintained during the pandemic proves how well you responded. You reminded us of the importance of country and culture when dealing with a crisis. You alerted us to the pressure points for First Nations peoples and you showed us the way through. The pandemic highlighted the cracks in services and needs, especially for First Nations children. I look forward to continuing to work with you to address these.
To the climate and environment groups in Cooper: you found ways to adapt your important work to the restrictions we faced in Melbourne. Our 'Friends of the Creeks' groups were a great example, using their hour of daily exercise to pick up rubbish along the creeks and to keep an eye on the health of our waterways. And to my own Climate and Environment Reference Group activists a sincere thank you. The group has done incredible work this year and has helped to ensure I kept a direct line between activists back in Cooper and this chamber. Whilst we've been up against a health crisis, the climate crisis has not gone away. This group has helped to keep our community informed, connected and represented when it comes to action on the climate and the environment. You're wonderful, and I can't wait to see all of you in person next year.
And, of course, to our refugee advocates: you are tireless, persistent and bold. I give a special call-out to the 'Cooper Grans', who keep me grounded and who give me hope. They give me hope that we can get an outcome for asylum seekers and refugees bound up in indefinite detention. To all who make the trip down to the Mantra hotel each week, I thank you. The men inside tell me time and time again how important your presence is. I will not give up fighting for human rights alongside you.
I give a big shout-out to our business community, who've done it very tough. Your resilience and ability to transform and adapt to the crisis was astounding. I have never enjoyed shopping locally as much as I did during the pandemic—seeing the whole community of Cooper come out to support you. And, finally, thanks to everyone who did the right thing, kept each other safe and saw us through to the current double-doughnut situation. It'd be lovely to see your gorgeous faces without the masks. Thank you.
Mining Industry
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (19:45): Coal and gas are so important to my electorate of Flynn and the economy of Australia. Some coal facts are as follows. Australia is the fifth-largest coal producer in the world, with the fourth-largest reserves in the world. It's the No. 1 exporter of metallurgical, or as we once knew it coking, coal. It's the No. 2 exporter of thermal coal, which is used for the generation of electricity. In 2019-20, we exported 177 million tonnes of coking coal, earning $35.5 billion, with 213 million tonnes of thermal coal generating $20.9 billion.
With COVID-19 in 2019-20, we've seen a drop of 21.7 per cent of coking coal—it was down. Also thermal coal was down by 22.5 per cent. According to the IMF, there was a global slump in coal prices, down 4.4 per cent. The good news is there was a 5.2 per cent rebound in 2021, according to the IMF. The industry is a significant employer in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria. There are 50,000 direct jobs. There are 100,000 indirect jobs. There is a predicted rebound for 2021, as demand and price will increase after suffering the downturn of COVID.
Asian countries know that coal plays an important role in producing cheap, reliable, baseload power for their fast-growing economies. No other form of generated electricity can meet this criteria. China demand will be a key driver to the price for their massive steel industry. Iron ore and coking coal are essential for making steel. Demand and procurement drive the price. No matter what country they import it from, the same issues apply. In India—the second-largest importer of coking coal—demand is predicted to rise in 2022 and continue to rise for at least another decade. In 2021-22, world trade demand for coking coal is expected to increase, while thermal coal demand is expected to decrease. Across Asia, the preferred electricity source becomes HELE coal-fired power, which will increase the demand of thermal coal and Australian thermal coal.
By keeping our energy costs down, we'll invigorate our manufacturing industries. The best way to do this is through coal. We should be building more coal-fired power stations, not fewer. The electorate, I've seen, has 15 operating coalmines. They produce our thermal and metallurgical coal for both domestic and export markets. The electorate of Flynn sits in the Bowen Basin. The Bowen Basin contributes approximately 211.2 million tonnes of coal.
Three of Queensland's largest coal-fired power stations sit in Flynn: Gladstone, Stanwell, Callide B and Callide C. We need to invest in coal rather than demonise it. I believe that we need to start planning for new coal-fired HELE plants ASAP. Shutting them down will only put electricity prices up. We have the best coal in the world. Let's utilise it. Would someone please tell the banks and the insurance companies to get on board, because presently they are anti coal and anti gas and anti insurance.
COVID-19
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (19:50): In February of this year, Labor's shadow Treasurer gave an excellent speech in which he made what should be an uncontroversial suggestion—that we look at a version of New Zealand's wellbeing budget, which redefines what success means in terms of economic outcomes. Although GDP matters and not for a moment should we consider ditching it, as Labor's shadow Treasurer said, we should consider how we could supplement it, because, to quote Joseph Stiglitz, if we measure the wrong thing, we will do the wrong thing. In response to this suggestion, the federal Treasurer came into this chamber and put on a pantomime act, saying that the shadow Treasurer was:
… fresh from his ashram deep in the Himalayas, barefoot, robes flowing, incense burning, beads in one hand, wellbeing budget in the other …
Not only was this embarrassing because it was a pantomime act; the Treasurer should have been embarrassed because of his lack of knowledge of the history of GDP. As one of the authors of GDP, Simon Kuznets, has said:
The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income.
There is more to measure than simply GDP, as important as GDP is.
The Treasurer's reaction is even more embarrassing now, in December of 2020. This year, COVID-19 has illustrated starkly and painfully that it's impossible to separate the wellbeing of our people from the health of our economy, society and environment. We knew before the pandemic that Australians cared about their physical and mental health and that of their families and friends as well as their connections to their community, the health of the natural environment and planet their children will inherit and whether society is broadly equal and fair. But COVID-19 and, before it, the devastating summer bushfires have stripped bare the fragility of almost everything we hold dear. They have raised the spectre of an entire generation of young Australians who may now face a future more difficult, less prosperous and less secure than the future their parents once faced.
There is no doubt that reviving economic growth and creating jobs are critical challenges facing our leaders and will be for many years to come, but, as we imagine post-COVID or COVID-normal Australia, we should be asking ourselves whether the traditional measures of national income, such as GDP, are sufficient indicators of our progress. While economic prosperity fairly shared must play a central role in our national agenda, in order for Australia and Australians to truly thrive it should be embedded in a larger story of wellbeing, of people, of communities and of the places we live in and love. Arguably, the failure to see national wellbeing and national economic growth as indivisible explains why, as The Economist observed in 2011, while Australia is at our best in a crisis, our history is one of failing to take advantage of prosperity.
Historically, though, times of profound national change in Australia—1901, World Wars I and II, the 1980s—have characteristics in common with each other and where we find ourselves now. Most obviously, they followed crises that threatened health, wealth and wellbeing. They all required leaders from the political, social, business and civil spheres of society to put down their cudgels, at least temporarily, in order to achieve the nation's larger goals. In all instances, in the urgency of the moment, leaders took one step back to forge a simple, compelling narrative that the population could rally behind. Thinking larger, looking longer, leaders of periods in the past built legacies that will endure. They created a nation. They built a nation in which everyone had a job, and they opened our nation to the world. We need equivalent vision from our leaders today.
As economist Kate Raworth said in her book Doughnut Economics, 'We have an opportunity to change the goal.' We can decide to judge the success of recovery from the global pandemic not just by how swiftly the economy rebounds but also by whether our country is meeting measures of what Australians value as contributing to a good society. I've suggested that we look at a quadruple bottom line: what is good for the economy, what is good for health, what is good for the environment and what is good for democracy. Australians deserve us to stand up. (Time expired)
Citrus Industry
Mr PASIN (Barker) (19:55): I rise tonight to defend the interests of citrus producers in my electorate of Barker. The Riverland is the food bowl of South Australia and is, I'd argue, Australia's premiere citrus district. The region will of course be important if we are to make true on Australia's goal of $100 billion of agricultural output by 2030. In fact, our government is serious about meeting this milestone, and I will not stand by while citrus producers are punished by bureaucratic nonsense. On 27 November, the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation rejected a proposal to give minimum four-star health ratings to 100 per cent Australian-made fruit juices with no added sugar. By rejecting this fair proposal, the ministerial forum is allowing fruit and, for that matter, vegetable juices to be rated as low as two health stars, based purely on their sugar content, ranking them lower than some soft drinks. Diet soft drink is rated more healthy than 100 per cent fresh Australian fruit juices. It's madness! While I appreciate that fruit juice does contain sugars, there is a large difference between added cane sugar made of 100 per cent sucrose as is found in soft drinks and the natural sugars present in fresh juice predominantly made up of fructose, not considering the nutritional content of fruit juice. It's reprehensible, considering that the health star rating should be focused on overall health, not just a product's sugar content.
The low health star rating of juice contradicts the Australian Dietary Guidelines which place fresh juice in the 'eat more' category. These guidelines allow for fruit juice as a substitute for whole fruit, with a 125 millilitre glass of orange juice containing half the recommended daily intake of vitamin C and equating to one serve of fruit. Beyond vitamin C, orange juice is rich in folates and is a good source of thiamine, which is used to produce energy. It also contains polyphenols, which are antioxidants; beta carotene, which is a producer of antioxidants; and low-GI carbs for prolonged energy. These nutritional benefits also make it an excellent form of hydration, so it beggars belief that all natural juice can be rated so low.
I can only surmise that the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation possesses a lack of understanding of the nutritional benefits of fresh fruit. At a time when only five per cent of Australians get their daily recommended servings of fruit and vegetables, we shouldn't be dissuading consumers from purchasing natural fruit juice by using a misleading health rating. As a result of the decrease in the health star rating from the current five-star rating of many juices to as low as two stars, I feel certain that we'll see fruit juice removed from school canteens, family trolleys and the breakfast bar, inevitably leading to decreased demand. This is the last thing we should be doing to Australia's citrus producers as, domestically, Australian juice has already declined 30 per cent in 18 years. Our government has been outspoken in its condemnation of this decision. I'll continue to fight for our producers because I know that, without them, rural communities suffer. Well-known companies such as Nippy's have become household names, and this is one of the businesses that will suffer from this decision. They are one of the many food producers in my electorate playing an essential role in value-adding to our already premium produce.
As everyone in this place knows, food manufacturing is one of the six priorities of our government's $1.3 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy. Our commitment to manufacturing and value-adding in our economy will not be swayed, even by this very poor decision. I urge the Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation to do the right thing and rethink their decision. For the benefit of our producers and the overall health of the Australian population, the proposal for a minimum four-star rating is the very least they can expect, and we should assign that four-star rating to fresh Australian 100 per cent fruit juice. Until then, I encourage everyone to set aside the health star ratings and do their bit by grabbing a bottle—or, maybe, two—of 100 per cent Australian fruit juice next time they visit the grocery store. It's a great product, it's a healthy product, and, by buying it, you're supporting Australian farmers and regional communities.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr McCormack to move—That the resolution of appointment of the House Select Committee on Regional Australia be amended to replace ‘final report no later than 31 March 2021’ in paragraph 2 with ‘final report no later than 30 December 2021’.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Bird) took the chair at 10:30.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Ballarat Electorate: Berry Street School
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (10:30): Last year I had the privilege of visiting Berry Street School in my electorate of Ballarat to announce a small grant for landscaping works. With the pandemic, it was almost a full 12 months before I could get back to the school to see the terrific work that they've done, but, when I finally did get back there, it was certainly well worth the wait.
For those who don't know, Berry Street Schools specialise in helping students who, for various reasons, have become disengaged with mainstream school. This could be because they've had some difficulty in their home lives, they've had really bad experiences with mainstream schools, they may have learning difficulties or they may be in out-of-home care—and there may be multiple other reasons. Berry Street works with these kids at their own pace. It gets their education back on track and keeps them engaged with the system. It is a very small school and it works at the pace that kids are at. While these kids might struggle in a mainstream classroom, their skills and personal attributes are certainly undimmed at this school.
When I saw what these kids had managed to achieve with just a few thousand dollars, I was incredibly impressed. For a relatively small amount of money, they have created for themselves a beautiful school environment. They've built a fence, created gravel pathways, planted native vegetation garden beds and, most impressively, they've built and planted round-brick vegetable patches. As someone who, over the summer, will be building a pizza oven, I know firsthand how difficult it is to actually lay bricks in the round. But this group of kids has pulled it off looking like seasoned pros. The bench seats and the round-brick vegetable beds are just fantastic.
As I spoke to the kids about their work and watched the video that they put together, including interviews and animations, their pride in what they have done was very, very evident to see—and they should be proud. Through a pretty bleak Ballarat winter, these students have worked together to build something special and they've left behind a legacy for future generations of students at Berry Street to learn from and to enjoy. They've learnt new skills, worked together and achieved something impressive at their school.
To the team at Berry Street, to all of the teachers and, most importantly, to the students, I want to tell you how incredibly proud I am of the work that you've done and how far you've stretched what was a very small grant to your community school. I really look forward to coming back in the future to see what you have grown from your garden and to have you cook me a meal.
North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club
Double Bay Sailing Club
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (10:33): Back in 2018, the Morrison government committed $500,000 to the North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club's Advanced Response Lifesaving Facility, which was a $1.9 million project altogether. Last Saturday, I went to North Bondi Surf Club to see the completion of that project. This amazing project has seen upgrades to the beachside storage facility, including the demolition of sheds and the construction of a new structure of at least 250 square metres under the Bondi Beach promenade. The new structure houses the jet skis, rescue boards and rescue craft and it allows better response times for rescues at Bondi Beach. It also holds state-of-the-art paramedical equipment and other search and rescue facilities, and it will provide a secure location for rescue and medical equipment for the club. Alongside me were the Mayor of Waverley, Ms Paula Masselos, and the state member of parliament, Ms Gabrielle Upton.
I sincerely thank the New South Wales government, the Berejiklian government, and the Waverley Council for partnering with us to help fund this amazing facility, as well as, of course, the North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club, which fundraised money for it. The original storage facilities had been in need of upgrading to bring the facility up to current workplace health and safety requirements, and these upgrades will help improve rescue response times and provide greater safety and security to the community. My congratulations to the club president, Andrew Christopher, the previous club president, Mark Cotter, and all the team at North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club for enabling this project to happen.
On the same Saturday, I attended Double Bay Sailing Club's club championships, where I officially launched their new safety boat, which was funded via our government's Stronger Communities Programme. The club received $10,000 in funding to purchase the new safety boat, which will accompany club members on races on the harbour. The safety boat is named after Paul Adam AM, a longstanding club member and former sailor. Paul has been a member of the club's management committee, and a member of the club for over four decades, and each week he voluntarily donates his time to operate the club canteen; he was at the canteen on Saturday when I visited. He's also a very accomplished professor in the field of ecology at the University of New South Wales and a good local hero. At the launch, Paul laid a wreath with the words: 'To ensure many happy returns'. I want to pass on my congratulations and wish many very happy returns to Commodore Andrew Cox and all of the management committee, parents and sailors at Double Bay Sailing Club. It was a pleasure to join with you and to pour some champagne over the new boat.
Both these clubs, the Double Bay Sailing Club and the North Bondi Surf Life Saving Club are pillars of my community in Wentworth, giving a lot in terms of volunteering, helping to keep our community safe, improving water skills and safety skills, and helping look after one another during difficult times. Both clubs have been great assets through the COVID-19 crisis. It's a delight to speak about them here today.
Wills Electorate
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (10:36): I know many of us just want to forget that this year, 2020, actually happened. This last week of parliament of the year is an opportunity to reflect on serving and working with my constituents in the electorate of Wills. In January, the people of Wills came together to generously support communities directly devastated by the bushfires. Fundraisers sprang up in pubs, bowls clubs, cafes, sports clubs and small businesses. In February, urged by so many of my constituents, I spoke in this House about the need for urgent action on climate change. In early March, I attended a favourite local event, the Sydney Road Street Party—and little did we know that it would be the last such event for a very long time. In April, as COVID-19 hit Australia and we all entered lockdown, my staff and I helped hundreds of people to access support. We dropped off food packages, we did older people's grocery shopping and even had to intervene to stop a resident from being evicted, just days before the ban on evictions came into effect. We also worked on the return of refugee Amir to Australia, after the Morrison government had snapped the borders shut and refused him entry even though he had valid travel documents. I hosted a Zoom meeting with school principals in Wills to hear from them about the challenges they faced as our kids began remote learning. In May, as the lockdown continued, we saw more people and businesses being left out of government support payments: temporary visa holders, casuals, people with disability and disability workers, charities, local governments, universities, and arts and entertainment workers. Labor advocated consistently in this parliament and in public for all of these people to be included. In June, I sent a thank you letter and chocolates to every childcare worker, disability support worker and aged-care centre in Wills.
In July, we hosted an online cuppa with every suburb in Wills to hear from people who were in local postcode lockdowns. I called for more investment in public housing and support for residents in nine public housing towers in Melbourne who were struggling through a very hard lockdown. We helped a local Coburg couple travel to Canada for the birth of their son and bring him home to Australia. In August, as Melbourne entered its second lockdown, we ran a series of small-business giveaways to support our local businesses who were doing it so tough. I hosted a Zoom event on racism in Australia, because that's a conversation we must keep going. In September, we campaigned against this government's cuts to JobKeeper and JobSeeker. Those cuts made no economic sense, especially as Melbourne was still in lockdown. In October, we hosted a Zoom town hall meeting with Labor shadow Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, to answer questions about the budget. In November, we launched a campaign to get Wills back to work by making things in Australia and by investing in renewable energy, affordable child care and public housing. On the first day of free travel between New South Wales and Victoria, Labor leader Anthony Albanese came down to Wills to visit public housing residents. In December, just this past weekend, I got back out there—at a safe distance—for a street stall event in Pascoe Vale. It was fantastic chatting to everyone at street stalls and events. I look forward serving the people of Wills in 2021 and wish everyone in my electorate a safe and happy holiday season. Let's hope 2021 is a good one.
Bonner Electorate: Bonner Youth Advisory Council
Mr VASTA (Bonner) (10:39): Before I begin, I'd like to thank San Sisto year 10 student Isabelle Bounds, who wrote my speech today during some work experience in my electorate office.
I would like to share with the chamber the immense success of the Bonner Youth Advisory Council, BYAC, in 2020. BYAC was launched earlier this year, inviting high school students to share their views and opinions on the issues important to them. The program gave young people a platform to be heard and learn more about the inner workings of parliament. BYAC provides insight into the role of their government and how it works in with the community and outlines a clear path as to how they can get more involved to help influence change.
Given this year's BYAC success, in addition to continuing this program in 2021 we will also be starting a junior BYAC for primary school students. This will provide younger students in Bonner with the opportunity to demonstrate and grow their leadership skills, and a voice to be heard by their peers.
Our first BYAC zoom was joined by my Brisbane colleague, Trevor Evans, who provided fascinating insight into how our government is combating waste and working towards improving recycling methods. We got some great questions regarding how the government was improving recycling in Australia and the future policies around waste reduction.
In our final BYAC zoom of 2020, guest speaker Phil Thompson joined us and spoke about his journey from infantryman to parliamentarian. The message of his speech really resonated with students, with the words 'taking the hard right instead of the easy wrong', as he spoke of leadership and taking action for what you believe in. Students asked further questions around mental health and how they could reach out to those in need.
Overall, the Bonner Youth Advisory Council gave students the opportunity to be a voice for change in their community. I look forward to continuing this great program in 2021, with the addition of a junior council.
Asylum Seekers
El Halabi, Mr Mohammad
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (10:41): It's 18 days to Christmas. For most of us, it's when we begin to look forward to the holidays, excited to see our families and share the joy of Christmas or other religious and holiday celebrations. We plan meals and nominate someone to bring the esky and the ice.
But, for the men who are asylum seekers and refugees detained at the Mantra hotel in Cooper, this marks their seventh year in detention—seven long hard years on Manus or Nauru and now locked on one floor without access to outdoors or fresh air; seven years without liberty or certainty about their future; seven years getting sicker and sicker, because it is indefinite detention making them sick; seven years with nothing more than FaceTime to keep in touch with their mums and dads, their partners, their kids and their friends.
They have committed no crime. It is not illegal to seek asylum.
It's a similar story for the beloved family of Priya and Nades and their two daughters, who have marked 1,000 days since they were taken from their community in Queensland and consigned to a bizarre form of isolated incarceration.
It doesn't have to be that way. The government needs to recognise it is game over for indefinite detention. The men detained at the Mantra and across MITA and BITA and Kangaroo Point and Manus and Nauru, who sought our country's protection, need safe, permanent homes.
The government can return Priya and Nades and their children home to Biloela. I ask them to do that. It doesn't need to be a Christmas miracle. It's just the right thing to do.
One father who has committed no crime but will be spending his fourth Christmas behind bars is Mohammad El Halabi. Mr El Halabi is the former director of World Vision Australia operating in Gaza and the West Bank. He was arrested on 15 June 2016 by the Israeli authorities on allegations of funnelling $50 million of World Vision money into the terrorist group Hamas. The father of five, who was responsible for supervising humanitarian relief programs for World Vision, was declared by the United Nations in 2014 as a humanitarian hero.
It has now been more than four years since his arrest, with the Israeli prosecutors yet to prove the allegations made against him or order his release. According to reports, Mr El Halabi has been subjected to physical and psychological torture, has restricted medical care and limited visitation rights, and has been forced to attend court 146 times without evidence having been presented to substantiate the allegations. Investigations conducted by our DFAT and independent auditors, as well as World Vision, have all failed to show any evidence that the money was ever diverted.
It's imperative that the international community continues to place public pressure on Israel. Without any credible evidence to support the charges, Israel must release him. (Time expired)
South Australia: Film Industry
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (10:44): On the weekend it was my pleasure to attend a milestone announcement with Minister Paul Fletcher and the South Australian Premier at the South Australian Film Corporation studios in Glenside in my electorate in Adelaide. Last year the making of the largest Hollywood blockbuster movie ever in South Australia, Mortal Kombat, occurred at the film corporation. It will be released in the coming months, after some COVID delays. It is the largest film ever made in South Australia, and one that we hope will be very successful at the box office. Recent statistics on the South Australian film sector indicate that 15 per cent of the national production spend occurs in South Australia, which, proportionally, is more than double the relative size of our economy in Australia. That represents a 35 per cent growth in film, screen and television production activity in the state of South Australia.
On Saturday, we were able to announce that a joint production between the streaming service Stan and BBC One, the premiere television network in the United Kingdom, called The Tourist will be commissioned. Again, it will happen through the South Australian Film Corporation, with filming both in remote South Australia around the Flinders Ranges and at the Film Corporation studio in my electorate. It will be the largest television production ever to occur in the state of South Australia, so it will be another milestone for that sector and for us in South Australia. This is going to involve a significant investment of $25 million in the economy, more than half of that in the state of South Australia. There'll be job opportunities for 270 cast and crew and more than 850 extras in the production across its filming, and 120 of those jobs will be in my home state of South Australia.
This is all thanks to the recent injection of more than $400 million into the Location Incentive fund that Minister Fletcher was able to announce in the lead-up to the budget. This is making an enormous impact. It is the difference between getting some productions off the ground and not. These location incentives are vital in attracting the big, significant studios to make investments in the sector in this country. I'm very hopeful that there'll be a lot more of this that will flow. As I mentioned, the growth in South Australia has been enormous—35 per cent year on year in the recent statistics—and this new production of The Tourist is another great show of confidence in the local industry's capability. I see it moving from a piecemeal approach where we get ad hoc productions being commissioned on and off to having a constant, steady stream of production in South Australia, and the industry is responding to the incentives that are being put in place at both the Commonwealth and the state level. It's an exciting outlook for the South Australian Film Corp, and I'm proud to have them in my electorate of Sturt.
Whitlam Electorate: Roads
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (10:47): Whenever I hold my community consultations in Dapto, there is nothing more like throwing a cracker into a henhouse than mentioning the freeway on and off ramps. Last month I spoke to a family who'd moved to Dapto from Lake Heights to be closer to the father's workplace at Albion Park. They live a lot closer to Albion Park now—in fact, seven kilometres closer—but it actually takes them longer to make the simple, short trip to work than it did when they lived seven kilometres up the road. The reason for this is that coalition governments, state and federal, will not dedicate a cent to these on and off ramps where they are needed. It's ridiculous. Dapto is one of the areas of highest growth—in fact, I think it's the highest growth area—in New South Wales outside of Sydney. There are enormous housing developments going into Dapto, particularly on the western side of the freeway, but the government is not putting the money into the infrastructure which is going to make the place liveable for the young families moving into this area. It's absolutely ridiculous.
When the Wran Labor government first connected Dapto to the Princes Highway, or the M1 as it is now known, it initially connected Kanahooka Road in 1978, Fowlers Road in 1981 and Yallah Road in 1986. It was in this period that the people of Dapto began the campaign for flood-free access to west Dapto, a campaign that, with the support of federal and state governments, the city council finally realised earlier this year with the opening of the Fowlers Road bridge. I was pleased to campaign alongside the Wollongong City Council to get $10 million out of the federal government for that project.
We must turn our attention to dealing with the south-facing ramps from Dapto onto the Princes Highway. It is going to be a disaster if the ramps aren't built with all of the new housing developments in West Dapto. The government had $84 billion worth of deficit last financial year and the deficit will head north of $110 billion this financial year, and not one cent is spent on a new project of this sort between Engadine McDonald's and the Victorian border. It's time the federal government and the state government worked together to get this vital infrastructure built. I'll be working hand-in-hand with the locals, the local council and my state colleagues to ensure that we can get these much needed south-facing ramps built onto the Princes Highway so that the people of Dapto and the new suburbs in Dapto aren't caught in endless traffic jams trying to get to work. (Time expired)
Cystic Fibrosis
Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (10:50): As 2020 draws to its end, one of my reflections is that the year has displayed Australians at their very best: community minded, innovative, future focused and willing to make personal sacrifices for the progress of other Australians and for our nation. In a year characterised by phrases like 'quarantine', 'isolation' and 'social distancing', I want to highlight the progress of a group of Australians who've had many lessons to teach us this past year. Australians living with cystic fibrosis have been practising social distancing and quarantine for pretty much their entire lives. In some ways, 2020 has given us all an insight into the everyday lives of those living with cystic fibrosis.
I spoke about CF in this place soon after I was first elected and I noted at the time that the life expectancy of an Australian living with cystic fibrosis was 38 years. That resonated with me. I was 35 at the time. I've been part of the policy-making journey in the years since, as life-changing medicines have been placed on the PBS to support people with cystic fibrosis—drugs like Orkambi, Kalydeco and Symdeco. As a result, I'm very pleased to report that the life expectancy of Australians with cystic fibrosis has now risen from 38 to 48 years. The listing of those medicines is not cheap. The point of the PBS is to make unaffordable medicines affordable for everyday Australians and some of the medicines I've mentioned are subsidised to the tune of $200,000 to 300,000 per year, but this is a perfect example of why good financial management by a government matters. It's not about having good economic numbers for their own sake or for bragging rights; it's about the ability it gives a country to invest in things like new medicines and services that improve lives and empower individuals by giving them a fair go, which ultimately progresses our nation. I'm proud to be part of a government able to commit to listing every medicine recommended by the independent experts on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. I note that the PBAC is due to consider the drug known as Trikafta at their meeting in March. Trikafta is a drug that works for the majority of those with CF—about 90 per cent—and, quite simply, it saves lives. I look forward to the PBAC's consideration of that issue. I think they can reasonably guess what my view on this issue is. I thank Cystic Fibrosis Queensland for their ongoing advocacy and hard work in this space.
Chifley Electorate: Eagles RAPS
Chifley Electorate: WASH House
Mr HUSIC (Chifley) (10:53): Today I want to give the students at Eagles RAPS in Doonside a massive shout-out for their recent graduation. Local young people trained in courses over 12 months after global tech player Amazon Web Services teamed up with Eagles RAPS to help them step into future careers in tech. Well done to Amazon Web Services. The students completed certificate courses in information technology to meet the growing demand for talent in the tech industry and cloud computing in particular. A year ago, I was proud to also support the courses through a donation to Eagles RAPS. I'm proud to stand here today and talk about the first cohort of graduates that emerged from that course. I thank in particular Marten and Sally Wynd, who started Eagles RAPS over 20 years ago as an organisation addressing youth suicide. They started with less than $50 in their bank account and Eagles RAPS has grown to become a centre for vocational education and has supported over 2,000 young people who've studied there. Congratulations to Eagles RAPS, and I look forward to hearing about their future success stories. Importantly, thank you for believing in the capacity of local young people to make things a lot better for themselves out of what they've got ahead of them.
The other issue I wanted to speak about was WASH House, a community based resource centre for women that do a lot of work in our area to combat domestic violence. In recognition of the UN's 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence, WASH House held their annual community vigil to honour and remember women and children who died as a result of domestic and family related violence and homicide across Blacktown City. This is a nationwide pandemic, but it struck me, when they read the list of people—the women in particular, and the children who had been affected by this over the last number of decades: one in three Australian women have experienced abuse at the hands of a current or former partner; the Australian police deal with a domestic violence matter every two minutes, an estimated 657 domestic violence matters every single day; and this year alone 48 women have died. This is simply wrong. We need to face up to this as a nation. We need to speak about this more. Importantly, we need to do something about it. We've got service and policy gaps, insufficient funding, inadequate consultation and cuts plaguing the sector for people who are working hard to help women and children fleeing violence. We need to provide frontline services with the resources they need to tackle the pandemic. I was saddened to hear that a bid for funding by local organisations had been denied at the federal level. I would hope that we can see funds flow into our local area to support those groups that are supporting particularly vulnerable people who are facing the most difficult time in their lives.
Higgins Electorate: Small Business
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (10:56): The Morrison government is delivering the economic lifeline Australians need to get through the COVID crisis. As Victoria has exited its second lockdown and I've been able to visit more local businesses across my electorate of Higgins, I've been moved by the stories about and the thanks for what the Morrison government has done in providing COVID support measures. In one of my first visits out to businesses, as retail restrictions were lifted in Victoria, I heard from Katie Graham, who owns a local business in Chapel Street called The Family Love Tree. It stocks a large variety of homewares and furniture whilst also offering an instore café, which is unique and simply delicious. During this visit, Katie said that JobKeeper was a godsend for her business. She loved that her business was able to invest with confidence with the extension of the instant asset write-off. Katie's business is not alone. Jessica Stergiou runs a family owned business, Metro Furniture Group, which offers Australian-made sofas, dining room furniture and bedding. The support measures provided by the Morrison government ensured that this long-running family business, which Jessica inherited from her father, has been able to proudly continue to trade.
After meeting with these two great businesswomen, I launched a Women in Business Economic Forum to maintain and encourage dialogue throughout the community of Higgins. I was pleased that Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Treasurer Josh Frydenberg both attended the launch. In fact, it was the PM's first visit to Melbourne since February. Collectively we heard from women right across Higgins, ranging from sole traders to global business traders. They included Natalie Nunn, who runs Giant modelling, Jo Horgan, who is CEO of MECCA, Karen Kim, who runs Hello Music, and Cat Roosenburg, who runs Carnival for Kids Party Shop. The stories of resilience and resourcefulness from these business owners were simply extraordinary. I'm so proud that the Morrison government backed in these businesses through what has been this country's biggest health and economic crisis in living memory. These women were delighted that their voices are being heard at the very heart of government decision-making. They know we've got their backs.
The extension to both JobSeeker and JobKeeper have been provided as part of a scalable approach from the Morrison government. We are acting when it's needed, because this is what has been required throughout the COVID crisis. The lifeline to businesses and individuals which has been provided through COVID has worked. We're ensuring that our economy and Australians who live within it are supported and ready to be part of the post-COVID recovery. As the Treasurer said last week, 'The recession may be over, but the recovery is not.' We are on the right track, and our economic recovery plan will get us there. I'm very pleased to support the Women's Economic Security Statement, and we discussed this in depth with the women at the women's economic business forum in Higgins. It's a committee I hope to continue, and I appreciate the support of these wonderful women.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Child Care
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (10:59): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that under the Government's child care subsidy system:
(a) fees and out of pocket costs are out of control, with the Department of Education predicting that fees will increase by 5.3 per cent in 2020-21;
(b) fees have increased by more than 35 per cent since the election of the Government in 2013;
(c) Australian families contribute 37 per cent of early education and child care costs, compared to the OECD average of 18 per cent;
(d) there is an annual subsidy cap which is a significant barrier to work for many families; and
(e) secondary income earners earn very little take home pay if they go back to work full time;
(2) further notes that recent reports by the Grattan Institute, KPMG, and PwC have found that increased investment in early education and child care would boost Australia's gross domestic product by between $4 billion and $11 billion through increased workforce participation; and
(3) calls on the Government to fix its broken child care subsidy system that has failed to keep a lid on costs and has failed to support working parents, particularly women, to work full time or increase their hours.
Right now there are thousands of parents who can see the end in sight. Their child is at the end of her early preschool education, whether that's family day care, long day care, whatever form it takes. That child's about to head off to big school. The relief in sight? Well it's not that there won't be logistical challenges and maybe before- or after-school care or holiday care, but finally there will be relief from the relentlessness of high child-care fees. These are especially felt at the end of the year because so many families have reached their cap and don't get the financial support they get earlier in the year because somehow it's easier to find money in the lead-up to Christmas. Sure!
These parents don't know it yet, but the cost of before- and after-school care and holiday care is going to be a similar drain. That's a reality that we on the Labor side recognise. Parents are spending a lot of their family budget on child care. I have had many conversations with them about it, and also with grandparents, who are all too aware that the day or two a week they do minding the grandkids makes a huge difference to their family's budget. Parents and grandparents can see the merit of our plan, that is to scrap the subsidy cap, which often leads to families losing money from an extra day's work, lifting the maximum child-care subsidy rate to 90 per cent, and increasing the child-care subsidy to every family earning less than $530,000 a year.
I have also had conversations with people who aren't currently affected by the ever-rising child care costs. I think it's important that we all understand the situation families are facing, because it affects all of us. The current child-care system isn't designed to get everyone back to work. Many parents across all incomes want to go back to work or do more hours but find it isn't worth it because they don't take home enough pay. Many parents lose money when they work that fourth or fifth day, because the subsidy rate is based on the family income. So much for 'If you have a go you get a go.' In child care you don't: you get to go backwards. The proof that child care is too expensive for many families is in the numbers. Only 15 per cent of three-year-olds in Australia attend early learning compared to an average of 69 per cent in other developed countries.
Underpinning our policy on this side of the House is the belief that quality early learning is important for children's development, because we know the brain development that occurs in those early years. On average, Aussie families who are sending their kids to child care pay between 30 and 40 per cent of the household income. The OECD average is just 11 per cent. We are right at the top. Our families are bearing a higher proportion of cost than many other places.
Under Labor's policy more than a million families will be better off, and the greater support also applies to before- and after-school care and holiday care. As an example, a family with an income of $150,000 would be somewhere between $3,000 and $5,300 a year better off under our changes. I say to families, go to our child-care calculator and find out the savings your family would receive from our child-care subsidy reform. It's childcarecalculator.com.au and I'm going to post the link in the comments on Facebook below this speech. It will show you exactly the difference that we can make in your household budget and to your lives.
Let's be clear, while I can feel the relief of parents, this is not a welfare measure. This is about getting people back to work and into work. Cheaper child care is good for the economy, it's good for families and it's good for women. I would add that it's especially good for the kids.
Economists have modelled how much the economy grows with more investment in quality child care. KPMG estimated that child-care reform could generate between 160,000 and 210,000 working days a week, the equivalent of 30,000 to 40,000 full-time jobs. The Grattan Institute research concluded that women with young children will increase their hours of paid work by 13 per cent if the system is reformed to make child care cheaper, and those reports estimate that the consequence could be GDP growth of between $4 billion and $11 billion a year. That's a big kick in the right direction for the economy.
It's fundamental economic reform, something that will deliver immediate support to families. It'll make it easier for women to get back to the work they want to do and it will grow our economy at the time we really need it. These are the sorts of reforms we should be doing now. Clearly, the government has no plans to bring about any sort of reform. They have no ideas, and it's always going to be Labor who comes up with the great ideas and implements them. (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Georganas: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (11:05): As a working mother of four, I'm acutely aware of the pressures working families face each and every day. It can feel like there's not much time to focus on anything other than supporting our families. As a government, we know that accessible and affordable access to child care is a key to allowing women to work full time or start a business. As Australians, we should all be proud of the fact that, prior to COVID, the gender pay gap for women had fallen to a new low and female workforce participation had risen to a record high. As a result of our policies, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the female labour force participation rate was a near-record high of 61.2 per cent. Our government has been there and will always be there to help ensure increasing workforce participation, particularly for women. The childcare policies that we initiated in 2018 are working to help get women back into the work force and assist them in realising their dreams.
Our government's commitment to child care is clear. The new childcare package this government introduced in 2018 represents the most significant reforms to the early education and care system in 40 years. In the 2020-21 budget, the government will pay a record $9.2 billion in childcare subsidy payments, and this will grow to $10.7 billion in coming years. Around one million Australian families who are balancing work and parental responsibility are benefiting from this package. The new childcare package is providing more access and more financial support for those who need it most.
The coalition government is providing support for families who need it via the $1.5 billion Child Care Safety Net. Free child care is currently available for eligible vulnerable and disadvantaged families. Free child care is currently available for eligible families experiencing temporary financial hardship. A 95 per cent subsidy payment is currently available for eligible families looking for work. Full-time subsidy payment remains available for parents who have lost their jobs or have reduced hours of work via the relaxed activity test.
Services Australia are doing an outstanding job, with processing times for approved childcare subsidy now averaging around four days. That's something working families need. Importantly, 71 per cent pay no more than $5 per hour in daycare centres, and within that subset 24 per cent pay no more than $2 per hour. Ninety per cent of families using approved child care were entitled to a subsidy rate between 50 and 85 per cent. Around 86 per cent of daycare services were charging at or below the hourly rate cap of $12.20 an hour. Our once-in-a-generation reforms have delivered a 3.2 per cent reduction in out-of-pocket costs to parents since our package was introduced.
However, the member's motion today is misleading. The Department of Education did not provide an estimate on future fees. We can't trust Labor to tell the truth on fees and we can't trust Labor on anything they say about this policy.
Most families do not have an annual cap applied to them. There is no childcare subsidy cap for families with income less than $189,000. Around 84 per cent of families have an income less than $189,000 and no annual cap. The member's bill also states that Australian families contribute 37 per cent of early education and childcare costs compared to the OECD average of 18 per cent. It is true that more work needs to be done in this area, but it is at a similar level to other similarly developed nations. It is important to point out another OECD figure, and that is that the OECD numbers for labour workforce participation for women between 15 and 64 have Australia at 73.9 per cent and Norway at 75.7 per cent. The proportion of GDP that Norway spends on child care is five times the proportion of Australia's spend on child care, to achieve a 1.8 per cent higher labour force participation rate for women.
It is very complex policy area and it is a very complex issue for families, but it is an incredibly important issue. The Morrison government understands that female participation in the workforce is not just key to the individual prosperity of individuals and families but also key to the future prosperity of our great country. On this side, we recognise the importance of affordable and accessible child care and how it promotes workforce participation, growth and female economic empowerment.
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (11:10): I stand to support this motion because child care costs too much, and according to the Department of Education fees are set to increase even further, by 5.3 per cent next year. I commend the member for Macquarie for moving this motion. Put simply, child care costs us all too much. It costs women too much, it costs families too much and it costs our nation too much. In the 12 months to March, my electorate saw childcare costs rise substantially. The increase in my electorate ranged from 4.5 per cent to 21.5 per cent. At a 21.5 per cent yearly increase, the cost of child care would double every three and a half years.
Child care costs so much that many, many parents are forced to work less. Instead of working full-time, a parent, generally the mother, will work only three days or not work at all because the cost of full-time child care is just too great. The consequences of this are significant for our economy, for our productivity and for the health and wellbeing of families, women and children. Kids lose out on their development when their entire education is set back at the first formal step. The economy loses out because the pool of workers is reduced, driving down incomes and consumption. And women lose out, as they bank less superannuation and they're more vulnerable to homelessness and insecurity in their later years. They also can lose confidence in their skills and connection with their network. This is the exact opposite of what we want for women. I have been through it myself and I understand just how frustrating it is. It is not good enough and it needs to change.
Under Labor's plan, announced by the Leader of the Opposition on 8 October, more Aussie kids will be in child care, more women will chose to undertake more work and, importantly, 97 per cent of all families will save up to $2,900 a year—and no family will be worse off. This will be good news for my electorate. When I visit childcare centres and speak to young families in Corangamite, they tell me that the cost of child care is exorbitant and limiting and unfairly impacts on women. I recently spoke to Grovedale mum Pawandeep Gill. She wants her young girl to experience the benefits of an early childhood education but, under the current model, the childcare costs that come with working another day a week greatly outweigh what she will earn in aged care. This is the exact opposite of what we want for Pawandeep and for all women. Unlike those opposite, we want women to achieve their potential. Pawandeep should be allowed to choose. All families in Corangamite and Australia should be allowed to choose.
So let's be constructive. We can fix this, and Labor has a plan. Labor announced that an Albanese government would introduce the working family childcare boost to cut childcare fees and put more money in the pockets of working families straightaway. Childcare fees in Australia are some of the highest in the world. Under this plan, Labor will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap which often sees women losing money from an extra days work, fix the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent and increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than half a million dollars a year. This means that 97 per cent of all families will save between $600 and $2,900 a year.
Under Labor's system, many primary carers across my electorate will choose to work more, and the local economy will benefit by tens of millions of dollars every year as a result. As KPMG points out, increased investment in early education and child care would boost our gross economic domestic product by between $4 billion and $11 billion through increased workforce participation. In contrast, the Morrison government's broken childcare subsidy system has failed to keep a lid on the costs. Economists in Corangamite are calling for this reform. Business owners in Corangamite are calling for this reform. Women and children and families in Corangamite are calling for this reform. So I stand with the member for Macquarie and call on the Morrison government to fix its broken childcare subsidy system. Families should be able to afford child care for their kids, and women should be given the opportunities they deserve, to strive and reach their potential. It makes absolute sense—so let's make it happen.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (11:15): I thank the member for Macquarie for her motion raising the very important issue of child care in this chamber today. This is a policy area that I've spoken on a number of times in this place both from my own experience, as someone who has utilised the system for many, many years with my own five children, and also because of the challenges raised with me by constituents in my northern Tasmanian community.
As I've said before, while cost is important, a sole focus on the cost of child care is somewhat short-sighted, in my view. You can have the cheapest child care in the world, but you still need to be able to access it. From my discussions in the regional community which I represent, there is an accessibility issue particularly for parents who work shift work and single parents. In particular, I've heard from parents who wanted to take up work as seasonal fruit pickers but couldn't find suitable care to cover the early starts and the hours involved. I'm continuing to advocate for my community on this issue, and I'd like to thank Minister Tehan for his willingness to listen to me and a number of my colleagues who have raised similar childcare issues. These include my colleague who we've just heard from, the member for Higgins, Dr Katie Allen, who is exploring ways that families could opt for childcare arrangements that would better suit their family rather than standard day care, which can be limiting for many families, depending on where they work or live. As Dr Allen has said, every woman going to work should have the choice to access the type of care for their child that is right for them and their family. Whilst I certainly don't deny that child care can be a financial challenge for parents—and I speak from experience—it's a bit rich for those on that side to criticise the government, when fees increased by 53 per cent when they themselves were in government.
The Morrison government has delivered on changes targeting and assisting those families who need it most. We introduced a new, once-in-a-generation childcare package in 2018 with significant reforms that saw out-of-pocket costs fall. Thanks to these reforms, the ABS CPI data reports that costs to families remain 3.2 per cent lower than under the previous childcare package. The system designed by the government is targeted, assisting those who need it the most, with those who earn the least receiving the highest level of subsidy at 85 per cent. Over 70 per cent of families have out-of-pocket costs of less than $5 per hour per child, and nearly a quarter are paying less than $2 per hour per child for centre based care. The Morrison government continues to invest record amounts in child care, with another $9.2 billion in this financial year which will grow to $10.7 billion in coming years. The current subsidies have supported families during an all-time high in women's workforce participation: 61½ per cent in January 2020, up from 58.7 per cent in September 2013. Of course, I acknowledge that these numbers have dipped during the pandemic, but it is worth noting that 61.8 per cent of jobs created since May have been filled by women.
This brings me to another point: I note that the majority of the speakers on this motion are women. I think that reflects a part of the problem. I've stated in the past and it still holds true that the rhetoric around child care and parental leave measures is frustrating, given that these are measures that do not only impact women. I certainly understand, though, that this often does end up being a woman's responsibility. There are a number of statistics that indicate that child care disproportionately affects women, and likely a lot of anecdotal evidence as well. But I think we in the House have a duty of care to frame this issue as one that is shared by both parents. Child care is an incredibly complex issue and one that our government has spent a considerable amount of time and money on effectively addressing. It has resulted in significant positive change. However, our work lives are dynamic and changeable, and child care needs to be able to respond. There needs to be more to be done around flexibility, availability and equitable access, and I'm hopeful we can turn our minds to these issues rather than focusing solely on cost.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (11:19): High-quality, accessible child care and early education is a non-negotiable ingredient for strong communities and economies. The evidence for this is clear and uncontested. Children who access quality child care and early education are safer and healthier, they develop advanced social skills and are better placed to thrive in the education system in later years. Child care also promotes greater family cohesion and workforce participation. When delivered in a way that understands modern families, child care opens doors for parents—and I acknowledge the member for Bass's statement—mostly for women, to access social opportunities and higher family income through employment, training or study. Publication after publication proves that. When done right, the social and economic marginal benefits of high-quality child care far outstrips corresponding costs. With this knowledge, we should be doing all we can to expand the childcare sector and reform the childcare subsidy scheme to maximise access, especially for families who are disadvantaged and stand to benefit the most.
Unfortunately, this is not the case at present. According to the most recent ABS data, released in 2017, just under 50 per cent of the 30,000 families in my electorate of Indi accessed one day or more of child care per week. This is not enough. The studies referred to by the member for Macquarie in this motion, from the Grattan Institute, KPMG, PwC and others, including the Australian Institute of Family Studies, show that demand for affordable child care far outstrips access and supply across the nation, especially in the regions. In 2018, 21.8 per cent of residents in the Mansfield and Murrindindi Shires, in the heart of my electorate Indi, rated access to child care as poor or very poor. That's a whole 10 per cent more than the national average and even more when compared to our city cousins. But we don't need statistics to tell us that children in the regions are missing out; we just need to listen to what's being said amongst parents on the sidelines of the playgrounds or between a parent working part time and their boss when they cannot commit to more hours in the office. It's the families themselves, who want the best for their children, that know more can be done and that they are missing out.
I have a vision for universal child care and early education in this country. I congratulate the opposition for announcing similar in their budget reply. Now is the time to turn our attention to the nuts and bolts of reform. The Grattan Institute, for example, recommends lifting the childcare subsidy to 95 per cent before tapering and removing the annual cap. Back in June, I formally costed that policy through the Parliamentary Budget Office. The PBO estimates that raising the subsidy would decrease the fiscal balance by just over $1 billion per year. That figure pales in comparison to the $11 billion per year increase in GDP that the Grattan Institute estimates will flow from increased workforce participation and induced demand in the economy—an injection on par with cutting the company tax rate to 25 per cent. When you look at the nuts and bolts, it's a no brainer.
I've heard from many of the 130 childcare providers across my electorate this year, especially those who were unfairly hit by loopholes in the government's initial economic response to the pandemic in the first half of the year. If we are earnest about building back stronger, we should also be investing in capital works for childcare facilities, like the Mansfield Kindergarten, who are desperate to expand their service delivery and meet the demand of growing families in that region, or accelerating access to vocational training and qualifications for those hit by record unemployment rates to fully resource the sector, or backing in private providers like Kiewa Valley Kids in Tangambalanga, or supporting the expansion of innovative practices that have snowballing social benefits, such as for the loneliness epidemic creeping across this nation.
In October, I was delighted to meet with Reverend John Parkes, Trisha Glass and Sarah Garneau from Little Yacks at Yackandandah at one of my Indi budget breakfast roundtables. Little Yacks run a terrific intergenerational program with the local aged-care centre. This brightens the day of children and the elderly alike through fun, relaxed and educational sessions. It's modelled on successful programs in the Netherlands and could be rolled out right across this country if we committed to innovation and vision for this sector. High-quality, accessible child care and early education are non-negotiable for regional communities and economies like Indi. The return on investment is massive and I am committed to working with colleagues in this place from all sides to reform the childcare subsidy scheme to ensure we can all enjoy its benefits.
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (11:24): I rise to support this motion. Studies have shown that Australian parents pay almost four times as much as their international counterparts for child care. This often forces parents, primarily women, out of the workforce and leaves children without a head start in learning at an important age, that very young age when it makes all the difference. The child care subsidy is means tested, but for many families child care often remains far too expensive. This results in what has been referred to as the 1.5 earner model, where, usually, the father works full-time and the mother part-time. It's also estimated that Australian families sending their children to child care pay on average between 30 and 40 per cent of their household income to do so. The OECD average is 11 per cent and we are paying on average between 30 and 40 per cent. That is way too high. This results in the sad fact that just 15 per cent of three-year-olds in Australia attend early learning. It's not just child care; it's early learning at an age when the child's brain is like a sponge; it picks up many, many things. It's the easiest time in life to learn. The more they learn at that point, the more they'll cope with their education when they get older, the more likelihood they have of employment and the more likelihood they have of a higher education. It makes an enormous difference if children are learning at that age.
Those figures that I just gave about the difference between OECD and Australia result in the sad fact, as I said, that only 15 per cent of three-year-olds attend early learning, compared to an average of 69 per cent in other developed countries. We are lagging way behind. Too many children are missing out and too many are not getting the early learning opportunities because parents just cannot afford them. We need to take a good look at our Child Care Subsidy System and consider how we can better help families with their rising living costs. I'm very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese, and the member for Kingston, Amanda Rishworth, have done so. They have put together a package that will assist families. It'll assist mums and dads to get the child care that they deserve.
Labor has always been at the forefront of such important social reform. In fact, it was the Whitlam government in 1974 that announced Australia's first right of access to child care for every family in Australia. This was groundbreaking reform back then, and today we on this side of the House want to continue improving access to and the cost of child care for Australian families. The good, big reforms that help and assist people have always been announced by Labor and implemented by Labor, whether it be Medicare, universal health or the NDIS, and the list goes on and on. The proposal that the Labor Party has at the moment is, again, one of those major reforms that will assist families. It will assist mums and dads but, most importantly, it will assist children to learn and enable them to take part in the process. All the science and all the educational professionals tell us that the earlier a child starts learning the better off it will be for their education in years to come.
In my electorate of Adelaide, for example, families have seen costs rise by four and almost five per cent over only the last 12 months, while wage growth in this country is currently at its lowest in history. It is unacceptable to see a four to five per cent increase in child care costs and a wage growth of zero. These figures show clearly that the support of the child care subsidy, which is indexed to the CPI, is failing to keep up with out-of-control fee increases. Addressing the child care subsidy seems like an obvious way to lighten the load. It will help in productivity. It'll help parents going back to work. It'll help children in their education.
I hear from so many families in my electorate about how they are struggling to pay child care and to make ends meet. I've also hosted a childcare forum with providers in my electorate. Everyone is unanimous that the system needs reform. What's more, the current childcare system is not designed to get everyone back to work. Many women across all income levels want to go back to work, but they do more hours only to find that it isn't worth it because they don't take home enough pay. It's about time we fixed this. This is a fundamental and important reform that would help us recover. (Time expired)
Mr DICK (Oxley) (11:29): I rise to enter the debate today to talk about an important issue that not only affects families and cost of living issues in my electorate, but I believe in every electorate in Australia. Today's motion enables us to have a conversation in the parliament, to have a debate—if the government decided to defend their positions instead of giving up in this debate today—to talk about the No. 1 issue that is raised with me by families, which is the spiralling cost of child care in this country. Child care is not affordable in this country. This is the feedback that every Labor member of parliament has heard from the night of the Leader of the Opposition's budget reply, where he put the cost of child care firmly and squarely on the government's agenda. We've heard nothing from the Morrison government. Just last week the first visit that the Leader of the Opposition did was to fly to the electorate of Blair, my neighbour—I note that the member for Blair is here in the chamber—to hear firsthand from parents and early educators about the costs of child care in Ipswich. Ipswich is made up of many thousands of families that are groaning under the child care costs of this government.
The department of education estimates that fees in this country will increase by 5.3 per cent in 2021. But fees have already increased by 35 per cent since the election of the Morrison, Turnbull and Abbott governments back in 2013. Thirty-seven per cent of early education and child-care costs are average around Australia, which is compared to the OECD average of 18 per cent.
We know there is an annual subsidy cap, which is a barrier to many parents. We've all sat at kitchen tables or visited parents who all say the same thing: 'I'm working just to pay child-care costs'. We see that time and time again. That's why I'm so pleased that federal Labor is tackling this issue, is laying out a comprehensive plan to deal with the costs of child care in this country. Today the Leader of the Opposition, alongside our hard-working shadow minister and local member, Alicia Payne, launched the childcare calculator. Australian families can find out how much cheaper child care will be under an Albanese Labor government. This new website is a useful tool for the over one million families that will better off under Labor's cheaper child care for working families plan.
There are a couple of key tenets that I want to bring to the attention of the House today. Under our plan, Labor will scrap the $10,560 child-care subsidy cap, which often sees women losing money from a day's work. It's the same old conversation: 'I'm only working to pay for the child care'. We want that to be an economic driver and an economic benefit to this country; to lift the maximum child care subsidy rate to 90 per cent and increase child-care subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than $530,000.
What that means is that child care under a future Labor government will be more affordable for 97 per cent of families in the system. It will remove the financial barriers that disincentivise second income earners, predominantly women, to work full time. Our plan is to fix Australia's broken child-care system, which currently locks out 100,000 families because they can't afford it. I know, in the growth corridor that I represent and share with the member for Blair, we hear this time and again when we visit with mums and bubs groups, when we sit down at the Springfield Lakes YMCA, when I visit child-care centres, when I talk to advocates, they all say the same thing: it's time the broken system was fixed.
That's exactly what Labor will do. This is an economic issue; it's a productivity issue; but it's also a life-family balance issue. We want to see more people participating in the economy. Heaven knows, after the year we've had, that we owe it to families to help them get back on their feet.
In my remaining remarks I want to acknowledge the incredible effort that early educators provided in this country during the pandemic. Thrown on the scrap heap by this government, the first to be cut from JobKeeper, but valued, supported and recognised every step of the way by this side of the chamber for the outstanding work that they do contributing to our economy.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Returned and Services League of Australia
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (11:35): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the Returned and Services League of Australia (RSL) was founded in 1916 to ensure a unified approach to address the lack of organised repatriation facilities and medical services available to those returning from the Great War;
(2) recognises there are RSL branches and sub-branches in every state and territory, and most local communities have a RSL club;
(3) further notes the motto of the RSL is 'The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance';
(4) acknowledges that RSL clubs help veterans and communities right around Australia in many and varied ways; and
(5) congratulates the many hard-working volunteers and community-minded citizens who help make the RSL the success that it is.
The motto of the Returned and Services League, or RSL, is 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.' I read this in two ways. Firstly, we do need to be eternally vigilant and defend our freedoms, our liberty, against those who would oppress us. I also read it to mean that we need to look after and sustain liberty within our society, including the freedom and wellbeing of those who have served our nation and of their families.
This motion is particularly prescient at this point in time given the backdrop as we work through the findings and the recommendations of the Brereton report into Afghanistan. At this point in time, whilst we deal with the challenging nature of the report and its recommendations, it's imperative that we continue to provide every bit of compassion, understanding and support to our service men and women, veterans and their families nationwide. I know members on all sides of this House are of the same mind.
The RSL was founded in 1916 to ensure a unified approach to address a lack of organised repatriation facilities and medical services available to those men and women who fought in the Great War. This included looking out for the families of those comrades who did not return. The RSL arose out of discussions at a meeting in 1916 between the state branches or associations of returned soldiers. The core mission of the RSL has never changed, but it has continued to evolve as we meet the needs of each successive generation of service men and women and their families.
I'd like to take a moment here to congratulate the RSL in Western Australia, particularly the president, Peter Aspinall; the CEO, John McCourt; and the vice-president, Duncan Anderson. On 12 November, just under one month ago, RSL Western Australia opened its new headquarters, Anzac House, also known as Veteran Central. This is home to a veterans' hub which includes facilities which are dedicated to health, housing and, importantly, employment services for veterans. Anzac House Veteran Central will provide access to health providers, hearing health, physiotherapy, dental health, occupational therapy, mental health support and even financial, legal and employment support. In addition it will see services by Open Arms under the Department of Veterans' Affairs as well as easy access to counselling and services for veterans and their families.
The federal government is incredibly supportive of veterans' welfare, and this is what led to $30 million to partner with ex-service organisations and state and territory governments. The Anzac House Veteran Central hub I mentioned is one of a number around the country. In fact, there are six of those wellness hubs throughout Australia.
In September I was honoured to speak at RSLWA's state congress, where I touched also on the important work RSLWA is doing in supporting our current and former service men and women and their families through the partnership they have with the R&R Veterans Transition Centre in Jarrahdale, which itself is doing amazing things for veterans, service men and women and their families.
I'd also like to congratulate the RSLs in my own electorate, including RSL Osborne Park, where Richard Troughton and the committee there do great work; Nollamara RSL, with Keith Boxshall and the committee; and North Beach RSL, where my wife, Peta, and I are members. I particularly congratulate the president, John Rolfe; and executive members Brad Harrison, David King, Trevor McEntyre and Kochie. I also give a shout-out to the office bearers: David King, Chris Rampant, Alex Lennox, David House, Goughie, Paul McGuinness and Pete Edwards. I'm also compelled to commend a lot of those who lean in and help out constantly. This includes but is certainly not limited to Roger Hardwick, Greg Young, Macca Dougie and of course Rob Sweet, who is a tireless operator. I also commend some of the younger RSL members, who are starting to pick up the torch for the next generation, which is so important. They include Ben Pronk, Tim Curtis, Hannah Armig and Dave Singer. Well done to all of you. If I can give a final word of encouragement to those veterans out there who may not have joined their local RSL: please get on board and help pick up the torch.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (11:40): I second the motion. I want to acknowledge the member for Stirling and thank him for his service and for bringing this motion to the chamber.
As the motion notes, the Returned Service League of Australia was founded in 1916. Cast your mind back: that was in the middle of World War I—in the middle. There were many, many veterans who were going to come back from that war and face the challenges of returning to civilian life, to our economy and to our community. The RSL advocates for the best possible conditions for serving men and women and for those who served in the past. It's something that Labor on this side of the chamber wholeheartedly supports. I made that point less than two weeks ago when I spoke at RSL Queensland's AGM. I spoke of the need for us to provide better assistance in the transition from military service to civilian life as well. It's the largest ex-service organisation in Australia, with more than 1,200 branches around the country. It supports veterans and communities in many ways.
In my electorate alone, we've got 17 RSL subbranches, covering the Ipswich and Somerset region and in the western part of Brisbane. Many volunteers make a huge contribution to our local community, not just there but across the state, and we've had many people serving in RSL Queensland at a higher level. I thank RSLs, particularly the local ones in my electorate, for the role they play in commemorative services, school leadership awards and citizenship awards as well as individual information, advocacy and support. I was recently at Ipswich RSL, having morning tea at their Christmas celebration and thanking them for what they do.
That said, the RSL itself has admitted that it's had its brand tarnished somewhat in the last few years, through governance and financial problems across state branches, through the actions of a few individuals who have done the wrong thing. The RSL branches and subbranches have taken steps to do the right thing and correct these problems. In recent years some younger veterans, as the member opposite said, have been a bit reluctant to engage in getting involved and supporting them. This is not unusual. We've seen this happen with every generation that has passed since 1916. But eventually they pick up the torch and get involved. You can see that happening with the change from the Vietnam generation, if I can put it that way, to the Afghanistan-Iraq war generation. I can see that changing in the leadership in places that I've been to as I've travelled around the country.
But I want to commend the RSLs for what they do in providing support for veterans in need. It's encouraging to see younger veterans getting involved. One of the things I've noticed as I've reached out to the RSLs is the great work done in New South Wales, in Queensland and in Western Australia particularly with homelessness—accommodation services—and raising the plights of veterans. On any given night, one in ten people sleeping rough in this country is a veteran. On any given night, there are about 5,800 veterans who are homeless. It's simply not good enough, and we need to take steps in an intergovernmental and cross-portfolio way to improve this situation. This is a shame for this country.
We see in the movies how America and England treat their veterans. Sometimes we get a little bit high and mighty, but we have this problem in our society. How many of us walk past? There is the wonderful biblical parable of the Good Samaritan in the Gospel of Luke. I think it's about chapter 10, if I remember rightly. It's in there: it talks about the fact that we should be helping others. We've got to do better. One of the things I remember many years ago, when I was in Washington, just a few blocks away from the White House, were eight black veterans sleeping in a park. I thought, 'This shouldn't be happening in a country like America.' But it happens in our country. So I urge the RSLs to do better. And we've got to do better. We have to provide bipartisan support across this space.
In the time remaining, I want to commend Mates4Mates in my home state of Queensland for the great work they do. They do a fantastic job. They're looking to establish veterans' hubs, I know, across South-East Queensland. I just want to commend them for what they do and the help they provide. I've got friends in the Labor Party who are veterans who have experienced the help that Mates4Mates provide. I know there are constituents in my electorate who travel to Brisbane to get support from Mates4Mates. I know that Mates4Mates reach out. They do great things. They've got a fantastic gym there. They get involved in cycling. They have psychologists and psychiatrists and counsellors to help veterans. I thank Mates4Mates for what they do.
Vince, I thank you for bringing this motion. It's the right thing to do and we commend you for it.
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (11:45): I would like to take this moment to talk about the incredible work done by RSLs across Australia, including in my electorate of Chisholm. I know I'm not the first member to talk about their importance to the communities we represent and I hope I'm not the last one.
The Returned Sailors' and Soldiers' Imperial League of Australia, from which today's Returned and Services League of Australia originates, was founded by those returning from World War I, to preserve the spirit of mateship formed during the horror of battle. These RSLs honour the memory of the fallen service men and women who gave their lives to protect the values we hold dear. Their primary aim was to ensure that those wounded, injured and suffering as a consequence of war were cared for. For more than 100 years, the Returned and Services League has ensured that care, advocacy and financial assistance is provided to past and present service men and women of the Australian Defence Force.
This important work continues to this day. RSL branches provide a wide range of activities, advice and support to Australian soldiers and their families. For many Australians, their local RSL branch is at the heart of the connection they have to their community.
The story is no different in Chisholm. Our branches, which include the Blackburn RSL, Box Hill RSL, Burwood RSL and Waverley RSL, do such wonderful work for local veterans. Amongst so many other things, our RSLs hold social gatherings, dinners and fundraisers, as well as special functions and services on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. Having spoken to veterans at these services, I can attest to the value that many of them place on their membership of their local RSL and the connection and sense of community that they can find there.
The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister for Defence Personnel, my friend the Hon. Darren Chester, has encouraged veterans affected by the ongoing coverage of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force's Afghanistan inquiry to seek support if they need it. At this time, I cannot overstate the importance of RSLs to the ongoing mental wellbeing of our current and former service men and women.
We also must not understate the role that RSLs play for the rest of us. These proud institutions continually work to ensure that we do not forget the sacrifice that ADF personnel have made for this country, its people and our Australian way of life. But it has been a really difficult year for RSLs. COVID-19 has impacted the ability of branches to generate revenue in a big way. For months, with money no longer flowing from the sale of drinks and food and from the hosting of events, RSLs in Chisholm and across the nation have struggled financially. This has had a real impact on their ability to stay open and provide the services many veterans rely on them for. Now that restrictions are lifted and RSLs are operating, at least in a limited way, I would encourage everyone across Australia but particularly my community in Chisholm to get down to their local RSL and show their support: buy a pot and a parma, or just get a cup of coffee; every bit helps. RSLs are there for our service men and women and they have been there for more than 100 years. Now is the time that we as Australians can show our support. I'll be going to my local RSL next week, and I hope to see you there.
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (11:50): I want to thank the member for Stirling for bringing this private member's motion to the House. Since its founding in 1916, the Returned and Services League has been the bedrock of ensuring support for our veterans, service men and women. Through its extensive networks of volunteers and community-minded citizens the RSL has upheld its motto—and made sure that successive generations understand and value it—that: 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilance'. Calwell has a long history of service, from the Great War of World War I to World War II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, and Afghanistan today. As a community, we are proud of the bravery and honour of those who served then and those who serve today, and we work to ensure that their sacrifices are not forgotten and that they as veterans, and their families, are cared for and tended to, as is appropriate and as is needed.
As a multicultural community, we have a special relationship with our veterans. Many of my constituents came to Australia as a result of the consequences of those theatres of war. In Calwell, we are served by the Sunbury and Glenroy RSLs, and the Craigieburn War Memorial supports the RSL badge sales on Anzac Day and Remembrance Day. Our local historical connection to the Great War begins with the presence of the Maygar Barracks in Broadmeadows. In 1913, at the onset of World War I, the Department of Defence purchased the Maygar Barracks, which is situated on Camp Road, Broadmeadows, and it served as a training ground for the Australian Light Horse brigades. According to the late Elayne Whatman—a fantastic RSL volunteer who also served for years as the Broadmeadows Historical Society secretary and lovingly collected and catalogued local veterans' stories—the Maygar Barracks was a huge camp of white tents that served as accommodation for Australian soldiers as they amassed there before departing for Gallipoli. The barracks are named after Lieutenant Colonel Leslie Cecil Maygar, a captain in the Light Horse division campaigns of 1914 to 1917. Lieutenant Colonel Maygar was awarded the Victoria Cross for his part in the second Boer War but died from wounds sustained during the Battle of Beersheba on 1 November 1917. I had the honour of visiting Be’er Sheva in 2015 with a group of parliamentary colleagues, and we conducted our own Anzac Day ceremony there. It was a very memorable and moving moment for us all. In an interesting twist of fate, the Maygar Barracks would in the early seventies go on to be, for a short period, a migrant hostel for the many new migrants who had begun coming to Australia from Turkey, who later moved out and settled in the suburbs of Broadmeadows.
The RSL through its sub-branch structure has found it appropriate to include in its activities war veterans and members from our multicultural communities who have migrated to Australia and today are proud Australians. In doing so, the RSL has played a significant role in enabling the cohesive and successful integration of Australia's multicultural communities. These sub-branches include the Hellenic RSL Sub Branch. With 42 years of being a part of RSL Australia, it has provided great work for and support to the Australia-wide veteran community. I want to pay tribute to Major Terry Kanellos and president Steve Kyritsis OAM for their work. The Turkish RSL Sub Branch was founded in 1996 and has served as a very important part of developing the bonds of friendship between the Australian and Turkish peoples. It was in 1990 when my constituent and friend Ramazan Altintas, as the president of the Melbourne Turkish Education and Social Welfare Centre, applied on behalf of the organisation for it to become a member of the RSL. This was initially refused because of the centre's Turkish background. But, undaunted, Ramazan continued to invite war veterans, community members and politicians to the Turkish community's Anzac Day functions. In 1995, Gallipoli veterans Jack Buntine and Roy Longmore attended the Turkish community's ANZAC dinner and they sat down, as they said, to break Turkish bread with new friends.
In 1996 Ramazan visited the then Victorian RSL President, the late Mr Bruce Ruxton, to discuss his thoughts on the relationship between Turks and Australians. Ramazan, a quietly spoken but determined man, put to the charismatic and forceful WW2 veteran a simple proposition: 'We are not enemies—Australian and Turkish armies fought side by side during the Korean war.' On 14 November 1996 the Turkish sub-branch of the RSL was established. The Turkish community is one of the largest groups in Calwell and, at the time, the Herald Sun newspaper published: 'Once they tried to kill one another. But these days, former Turkish soldiers and Anzacs just want to grow old together.' I want to congratulate everyone, including Ramazan, for the wonderful work that they do in RSL activities.
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (11:55): I thank the member for Stirling for moving this motion. Respect, uncompromising directness and honesty, healthy scepticism and care and concern for all. When I think of what defines the men and women who belong to the RSL sub-branches in my community and underpins their actions and outlooks, I think of these characteristics. Members of the RSL, the veterans who have served Australia, respect our institutions, values and freedoms but they don't do it blindly. It is not in their character to fall for jingoistic rhetoric or fail to keep those in authority accountable. If they don't agree with something, they'll let you know—and in pretty blunt terms. Likewise, if they agree with something, they will let you know, but they will never pump up your tyres for no reason.
They are actively engaged with and participate in the institutions around them. They participate, they question, and they maintain a healthy scepticism, because the motto which defines the RSL is 'The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance'. That motto, which has been enunciated in different ways throughout the ages, is at its heart a reminder to all of us to be engaged in our democracy. The veterans who make up the RSLs throughout Australia, know that this vigilance is vital, because many of them have seen firsthand what happens to the citizens of nations where authority is unaccountable, where participation in institutions is prescribed. They know that this vigilance is not something that can be paused or taken for granted. We've seem time and again throughout history just how quickly liberties can be eroded—and our liberty is paramount. For members of the RSL, their service to Australia and their vigilance did not finish when they hung up their uniform. It continues to be demonstrated in how the RSL has advocated and continues to advocate for economic and health support measures for veterans and their families. It's also demonstrated in how they participate in their local communities. They care and are concerned for all.
In the Curtin community there are over 1,000 vets, and we have the Campbell Barracks and the Irwin Barracks. We also have eight RSL sub-branches: Cambridge, Subiaco, Cottesloe, Mosman Park, Metlands, Scarborough, Shenton Park and Claremont. Each of these sub-branches plays an incredibly vital role in our community. They are more than just a meeting place for veterans and their families. These sub-branches and their members live out the RSL motto in how they support our community, and their contributions can be seen in any number of ways—from working with the local rotary clubs to help with collections for Foodbank to ensuring that the stories of the local veterans are shared with our community.
They also support local sporting clubs and regularly collaborate with schools in our community to engage students in both Anzac Day and Remembrance Day ceremonies and the Poppy Day appeal. Perhaps most importantly, RSLs help students to understand the sacrifices of those who have served our country in conflicts, which ensures that the young people and the generations that follow continue to understand how hard won the freedoms are that we all now share and what their responsibility is in maintaining our liberty. Equally, the individual members of the RSL are just as active in their individual engagement with the broader community. They serve on local councils and on the boards of charities.
While he will probably haul me over the coals for this, I want to call out one particular RSL sub-branch president, and that is Mr David Thomas. He's currently the President of the Claremont RSL. In addition to being the President of Claremont sub-branch of the RSL, he's also the President of the Royal Agricultural Society of WA, the President of the Boer War Memorial Society and Vice-President of Western Suburbs National Seniors Australia. David's leadership and commitment to our community is infectious. He's a stand-up kind of man and he's also a very down-to-earth man. He has given me advice and assistance on all manner of things. I know he'll will give me a bollocking for saying it, but, David, thank you for your service and thank you for your leadership, not only to our vets, our current serving men and women in Defence but also our broader community. David, you are a legend.
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (12:00): I relish any opportunity to talk about the wonderful work the local RSL sub-branches across my electorate are doing every day. As a community with a large defence presence, it is no surprise that we also have a strong RSL sub-branch network that works tirelessly to support our veterans. This year has been tough on our RSL sub-branches, as it has been for everyone. Our normal commemorative services, which are usually large affairs on the New South Wales South Coast, had to be either very pared back or cancelled altogether. This was tough for everyone. These events give us the opportunity to come together to remember those who fought for our community and thank all our serving and veteran Defence Force members. They are incredibly important for so many reasons. While services were small across my electorate for Remembrance Day this year, I was pleased to have several members of the local community lay wreaths on my behalf at the services that could go ahead. This year, parliament was sitting, so I was not able to attend services in person, but I was pleased to be represented at services held by RSL sub-branches in Batemans Bay, Berry, Bomaderry, Callala Beach, Culburra Beach, Gerringong, Huskisson, Kiama-Jamberoo, Milton, Ulladulla, Moruya and Sussex Inlet. It was also lovely to have representatives at services held by the Keith Payne VC Veterans Benefits Group and Coastal Waters Retirement Village. Thank you to everyone who made these services possible. Sadly, the Nowra, Shoalhaven Heads and Tomakin services were unable to go ahead this year.
To help commemorate the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War this year, the Department of Veterans' Affairs produced a special commemorative medallion. I was thrilled to have the opportunity to present a number of these medallions to our surviving World War II veterans, thanks to the efforts of some local RSL sub-branches. There are obviously a number of challenges involved in organising events such as these, particularly when it comes to protecting our precious veterans. Not all RSL sub-branches have been able to do that, and that is no fault of theirs. It is a logistically very difficult task, but I want to make special mention of a few who did. On Vietnam Veterans Day in August, I had the privilege of attending the Sussex Inlet RSL sub-branch's combined commemoration day service. The service honoured the sacrifice of our Vietnam veterans, national service personnel and Korean War veterans and recognised the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Pacific. I was delighted to have the opportunity to present the commemorative medallion and certificates to a number of their veterans. In September, I was honoured to join with members of the Huskisson RSL sub-branch at Coastal Waters in Worrowing Heights to present a local World War II veteran with his medallion as part of a small ceremony. I also joined with the Nowra RSL sub-branch at a special service at the Nowra Ex Servos club to present medallions and certificates to a number of their well-deserving veterans. Thank you to all the members of the Sussex Inlet, Huskisson and Nowra RSLs for making this possible. I was absolutely overjoyed to be part of these special commemorations.
My office has also worked closely with the local RSL sub-branches across the South Coast to arrange the medallions and certificates for many local veterans. I know it means a lot to them and their families and it just wouldn't be possible without the hard work of our sub-branches. Thank you to you all. All of the RSL sub-branches across the South Coast do a fantastic job of supporting our veterans. There are varying shapes and sizes, but each and every executive and member works hard to do what they can for their fellow ex-servicemen and women. It does not go unnoticed. COVID-19 has certainly made that tough, but it hasn't stopped the fantastic efforts that are going on. Volunteer veterans' advocates form a critical part of the work the RSLs do, and I regularly hear from people who are grateful for that support. Being veterans themselves, this can be challenging work for them, but they do it because they care so much about getting positive outcomes for veterans who are doing it tough. Thank you to you all.
I also want to give a special shout-out to all of our current and former Defence Force members. You have dedicated your lives to protecting our community and many of you have continued that selfless work. Our community is forever indebted to you.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (12:05): I would really like to thank my good friend the member for Stirling for moving this motion today and giving us the opportunity to speak about our local RSLs and the impact that they make in our local communities. I know that as a veteran yourself, Member for Stirling, this is an issue very close to your heart, and I thank you for raising it.
RSL Queensland say it very well when they say, 'We are veterans helping veterans, united in our desire to champion the rights of all veterans.' I know, when speaking about the incredible RSLs that we have in our electorate of Ryan, this statement couldn't be more accurate because of the hard work of those individual volunteers. The local RSLs in the Ryan electorate provide a unique and much needed connection to veterans of all ages and backgrounds. They provide camaraderie and advice and practical support for our local veteran community. That camaraderie and support has never been more important than in this particularly tough year. I want to commend our local RSL sub-branches for the work they did to support their members throughout 2020. Thanks in particular to the Toowong sub-branch, The Gap sub-branch, the Bardon sub-branch, the Gaythorne sub-branch, the Sherwood-Indooroopilly sub-branch and for all that you did to bring together your members and the wider veteran community, not only to stop them from feeling isolated but by making it possible to mark significant days in the veteran calendar. I know from talking to the members of these sub-branches that in particular they miss very much the opportunity to get together as a large group, to have a beer and to swap stories as they normally do. Despite that they were stoic and they supported each other throughout.
A good example of this was of course Anzac Day this year, when RSL Queensland were instrumental in the powerful show of solidarity and respect that was their Light up the Dawn campaign. Our local RSLs were a big part of this campaign, and their members along with families and friends encouraged others in the local community to stand on their driveways at 6 am to be part of this nationwide Dawn Service. I did it myself with my young family, my son. It was a really important opportunity to talk to my son who, like all small children, complained about having to get up that early. It was important to talk to him about the fact that this is a very small sacrifice we make to honour people who have made far larger sacrifices for us. I enjoyed having that conversation with him. That is part of the process that all families go through every year.
I was also very lucky to speak with local veterans about what Anzac Day meant for them. Normally, as part of these very large services that we have in the electorate of Ryan you would have community members gather in large numbers to hear the stories of individual veterans. We couldn't do that this year with COVID, so it was my pleasure to help pull together a digital campaign to promote those local stories across the electorate of Ryan. I was lucky to video individual veterans like Tim Simkin and Ken Cullen from the Gaythorne RSL, George Hulse, the Toowong RSL president, and Rick Maher from the Kenmore-Moggill RSL. Even though they couldn't hear from the local community directly, the local community could still hear their stories of sacrifice. I think it was an important part of what Anzac Day is all about.
The Morrison government is committed to making sure that our RSLs have the funding they need to continue to support their local membership. I have been very pleased to help secure some recent funding for my local RSLs to support these ex-service men and women. The Kenmore-Moggill RSL has received $1,200 out of the Building Excellence in Support and Training program, and the Gaythorne RSL has received over $44,000 in the Building Excellence in Support and Training program as well to support their efforts in pensions advocacy and welfare work.
We're also very excited in the Ryan electorate to be building the first Australian cadet unit at Brookfield, which was made possible by the $100,000 commitment that I helped secure in this year's federal budget. We know that Australian Army Cadets is an important community based youth development organisation. It's very passionately supported and pushed by the president of the Kenmore-Moggill RSL sub-branch, Lieutenant Colonel Rick Maher; and sub-branch Treasurer Richard Ponsonby. They have been instrumental in this, and I really appreciate the support.
To all of our veterans in Ryan: thank you so much for your service both when you were in uniform and now out of uniform, supporting your fellow veterans through the RSLs.
Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (12:10): A defining Australian characteristic is that one would struggle to find a township without a war memorial or an RSL club. It's largely a legacy of World War I, when few households did not have at least have one family member enlist and more likely than not were left to grieve a loved one by the war's end. Grief and loss bring people together in an enduring way. For those who serve, who face the horrors of war, the experience will very likely never leave them. Only those who have lived through war would understand the effects it can have on a person and the help that is needed. That is why in 1916, as Australians began returning home from World War I, often mentally and physically damaged, the need for an RSL became apparent. It would be a place where those returned soldiers could find comfort, understanding and mateship.
Today around 550 RSL clubs still exist around Australia, with a membership of around 177,000. There are several in the region I represent. Only a week ago I attended a centenary celebration lunch of the Salisbury RSL. The Salisbury branch was established on 3 July 1920, but, because of the COVID pandemic, the lunch was deferred until last week. As I sat in the clubrooms, as I have done so many times before, I looked around at the walls adorned by 100 years of memorabilia, photos and honour boards. It brought home to me the number of people who had passed through the clubrooms and the very unique purpose it serves. On the day, club President Don Prider gave a brief overview of the club's very extensive 100-year history.
The same can be said of the Tea Tree Gully RSL, which I also visit often, including in recent weeks. It too has a very long and proud history, with a great leadership team who always put the interests of veterans first. Over recent weeks, with assistance from Tea Tree Gully President Mal Fergusson, Vice-President Terry Nicholas, Secretary Wayne Langford, longstanding member Michael Sherlock and SA RSL state President Cheryl Cates, we organised several special presentation ceremonies of World War II appreciation medals to Colin Keay, Bill Andrew and Brian Attrill. Time doesn't permit to read their military citations, but I felt very humbled by each of their military contributions. Sadly, Brian Attrill passed away earlier this year, so his medal was accepted by his wife, Alma, and other family members who gathered for the presentation.
Today, 104 years since their inception and some 75 years since the end of World War II, some RSL clubs are beginning to struggle with membership numbers and many of their members are, understandably, also getting to an age where they can't regularly attend. Yet the needs of the veterans have never been greater, as evidenced by around 600 veterans suicides over the past two decades. The prevalence of mental health, family breakdowns and homelessness across veterans should be of concern to us all, and I know those matters have been raised by other speakers. That's why we need a royal commission into veterans suicides and why the government's proposition of a veterans commissioner falls well short of what is needed and what the veterans community is asking for. The statistics of course would be much worse were it not for the RSL clubs, which is why we not only acknowledge the RSL's history but also thank them for their efforts since 1916 in supporting veterans.
Finally, I thank RSLs for their broader community work and for telling the story of the defence forces to younger generations through things like school visits and visits to other community facilities. In doing so, they are not only passing on our history and appreciation to the men and women who have served in Australia's defence forces over the years; they are also educating our young people about those who have come before us and who have made this nation the nation that it is—none more so than the men and women who have served in our defence forces and done so in the protection of our country.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Charitable Organisations
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (12:15): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) charities are the most trusted sector in Australian public life;
(b) charities employ over one million Australians and contribute nearly one-tenth of Australia's national income;
(c) charities are the first line of support for the most vulnerable in our communities during times of economic and social upheaval;
(d) meeting the requirements of Australia's seven different fundraising regimes is wasting the time and energy of Australian charities and not-for-profit organisations; and
(e) the Government's failure to act on fundraising reform is costing Australian charities over $1 million every month;
(2) recognises that:
(a) for several years, the charity and not-for-profit sector has been calling for reform of Australia's fundraising laws;
(b) Treasury's 5 year review of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, delivered on 31 May 2018, identified fundraising law as the major reporting burden on charities and recommended that fundraising law be harmonised across the country;
(c) on 14 February 2019, the Senate Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century called on parliament to harmonise fundraising law within two years;
(d) that inquiry, chaired by Labor Senator Catryna Bilyk, delivered a unanimous report, with its recommendations being supported by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, Liberal Senators Eric Abetz and Amanda Stoker, former Labor Senator David Smith, and former United Australia Party Senator Brian Burston;
(e) throughout 2020, the National COVID-19 Coordination Commission's Not for Profit Working Group, the Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements, and the Charities Crisis Cabinet have all identified harmonisation of fundraising laws as a key initiative in helping Australian charities provide strong support for our communities; and
(f) failure to deliver fundraising reform has significant costs to the charity and not-for-profit sector, with the Senate Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century report estimating that the annual cost to charities and their donors is around $15 million; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) apologise to Australian charities for failing to meet the two-year timeframe set out in the Senate Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century report;
(b) now commit to support Australian charities and the communities they serve by ending unnecessary waste of their precious resources;
(c) support the generous Australian donors who donate money to our charities, by ensuring their donations are not needlessly eroded by redundant administrative and regulatory costs; and
(d) confirm a timeline for the commencement of a consistent national model for regulating not-for-profit and charitable fundraising activities.
We tell our kids, 'Don't put off until tomorrow what you can do today.' Fix the leaky roof now. Don't wait until it rains. It's not as though the Morrison government hasn't been warned about the importance of fixing fundraising. There has been a slew of recommendations calling on the Morrison government to fix the outdated patchwork of fundraising laws that currently requires a charity that wants to raise money on the internet to register in seven different jurisdictions. Treasury's five-year review of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, delivered on 31 May 2018, identified fundraising law as the major reporting burden on charities. The national COVID commission's not-for-profit working group called on the government to fix fundraising. The Charities Crisis Cabinet has called for it. The Royal Commission into National Natural Disaster Arrangements contains recommendation 21.2: 'Australian, state and territory governments should create a single national scheme for the regulation of charitable fundraising.'
Most importantly, the Senate Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century, on 14 February 2019, called on parliament to harmonise fundraising law within two years. This was not simply a Labor report. It was brilliantly chaired by Senator Catryna Bilyk, but its recommendations were supported by the Greens senator Rachel Siewert, Liberal senators Eric Abetz and Amanda Stoker, former Labor senator David Smith, who I'm pleased to now have in the House with us, and former United Australia Party senator Brian Burston. A bipartisan parliamentary committee called on the government to fix fundraising within two years. Will they do it? Nope. They're going to miss the deadline. Valentine's Day 2021 will come and go with the government having failed to fix fundraising.
The pandemic and the bushfires have shown what a tragedy this is. The national bushfire crisis caused an outpouring of giving. Sure there were some issues around Celeste Barber's $51 million, but it was a demonstration of the generosity of Australians. But the charities who received it had to go through an unnecessary compliance burden. Now we've seen the pandemic shut down event based fundraising and move to online fundraising. The internet doesn't see state borders, but fundraising law does. Sue Woodward from Not-for-profit Law has been the core advocate behind this reform. She says:
"Ultimately, we have to be able to answer the question of what does a charity do if they put a donate button on their website?" … "If the answer to that question is that they have to look at seven different laws just to work out how to comply… we haven't answered the question and we are holding the sector back at a most crucial time."
The Commonwealth should be leading reform, but instead it is sitting on its hands, unable to act on a key issue to the sector.
They say they believe in one-stop shops, but they fought for years to kill the charities commission. They say they believe in red tape reduction, but they're doing nothing to reduce the single largest regulatory burden that is hurting Australian charities. It comes with a price tag, around $15 million a year—more than a million dollars a month—which means that the Morrison government's intransigence and failure to act for the last two years have cost charities $30 million. Every charity worker, every donor in Australia should be furious at the Morrison government's waste of money at this crucial time. As an anonymous submitter to Not-for-profit Law at Justice Connect, when they looked into the issue, said:
With the advent of social media platforms and news sites, all of which have no state boundaries, our work is seen across borders.
The charity's problem is that they have to hope the donor isn't outside the state, otherwise they have to fill in the paperwork and the reporting for all the different areas. The fact is that the government's failure to act is part of their longer war on the charities sector. They have been at war on the charities sector since they got into office. They have failed to act on this crucial issue. They have appointed a charities critic to head the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, which is what you do when you fail in your attempts to get legislation through parliament to shut it down. The government should apologise to Australian charities, to the people they support and to the generous Australians who support them and whose money is being wasted by the government's failure to act on this crucial issue.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr David Smith: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (12:21): There's a lot that I agree with in this motion raised by the member; there's a lot that I don't agree with. The part that I do agree with is that I completely endorse the sentiments behind it. That is that charitable organisations play an extremely vital part in our community. Socially, they provide support to people in need and food packages to those without, as well as mental health support and lifesaving at beaches. The list of what volunteers do is incredibly long. Socially, volunteer organisations also provide an opportunity for people to volunteer. This encourages and strengthens the social fabric of society. It's often forgotten, but, when one person helps another, it's not just the recipient who benefits; the recipient, the giver and the wider society benefit from an act of volunteerism. Economically, there are more than 57,000 charities employing more than 1.3 million Australians which are registered with the ACNC. I agree with the member as well that what our charities have done over the course of this year has been nothing short of phenomenal. From the fires through to COVID, they have been there helping people in need.
In recognition of the vital role that they play and to provide support for this, the government has done a number of things this year. Charities have been able to access a JobKeeper test, which is more generous than that offered to any other sector, with a 15 per cent turnover decline test and the option to exclude government revenue from their calculations. Charities have also been able to access the Boosting Cash Flow For Employers program and a $200 million Community Support Package was announced by the government to support the assistance programs delivered by charities during COVID-19, including emergency and food relief and financial literacy services. Charities will also be the beneficiaries of incentives to encourage increased philanthropic giving in response to COVID-19, primarily through planned amendment to ministerial guidelines for public and private ancillary funds.
I also agree with the member that having seven different fundraising regimes is an administrative and bureaucratic nightmare for any charity which operates across more than one area in Australia. It absolutely wastes time and it absolutely wastes money. The member seems to suggest this is of relevant recent origin, whereas the fact is that the complexity of crossjurisdictional regimes that govern charitable fundraising has been a challenge for governments for the better part of 20 years. These regimes involve different definitions of what a charity is, different processes for getting approval to undertake fundraising activities, differences in how to account for funds raised, differences in reporting generally, and there are a multitude of oversight bodies. The Senate report referred to by the member in 2019 outlined a number of these. The Senate report did a very good job. A review of the ACNC in 2018 also identified a number of these issues. But the suggestion that an apology is needed because the government has not yet changed it is a stretch. For a start, it's not yet two years, but, also, it ignores the fact that you can only harmonise in a federation if you have willing and able players, and, with seven different players, you can well understand that this will be challenging. Even if they are willing and able, there are things that need to be negotiated.
What has been done is this. The government has formally responded to the ACNC review and to the Senate paper. The government has committed to enacting 21 of the 30 recommendations of the ACNC review, which focuses on three key themes: reducing red tape, increasing transparency and having an effective regulator. The key goal here is a balancing act: ensuring that the regulatory burden faced by charities is as low as possible whilst simultaneously ensuring that the level of accountability is such that all Australians can continue to have trust in the sector, which they so generously support.
On 31 August, the New South Wales government, in conjunction with other states and the ACT, released a public consultation discussion paper outlining a proposed cross-border recognition model for charitable fundraising. The release of this discussion paper is a significant step towards reducing the unnecessary red tape burden our charities face, and this government is strongly supporting this initiative.
So I do agree with the member's motion on the importance of charities. I do think that this needs to be tidied up. But, unlike him, I actually support this being done as a partnership between federal and state governments. As a proud Western Australian—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): I thank the member for Curtin. The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the member for Bean.
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (12:26): I wish to thank Dr Leigh, the member for Fenner, for bringing forward this motion and, more broadly, for his excellent work on the not-for-profit sector and how we can continue to build better communities. I also thank Senator Catryna Bilyk for her leadership and commitment to sensible, overdue reform in the charities sector.
In this time of COVID, many throughout the nation were and are in need of support; but so, too, are those who typically provide that support. Throughout this year, the challenges of 2020 have placed a far greater strain on our charities. According to JBWere, donations are expected to fall by seven per cent in 2020 and a further 12 per cent in 2021. At the same time, charities are experiencing a massive increase in demand for their services: 50 per cent in the case of Foodbank, and almost 80 per cent for Cystic Fibrosis Australia.
This added pressure led a number of organisations to form the Charities Crisis Cabinet. The crisis cabinet told the government in their pre-budget submission that the time for action on reforming charity fundraising regulation was more than 25 years ago.
In a recent past life, I served in the Australian Senate, and I was a member of the Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century. That committee's report was handed down in February 2019, and it picked up and reinforced recommendations from Treasury's five-year review of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, delivered on 31 May 2018. As was unanimously agreed by the Senate select committee, an effective way we can help our charities is to cut loose the arm that has for so long been tied behind their back. If we want to build back better, then we must ensure that the trusted, hardworking charities that hold tight the strands of our Australian social fabric are able to work better, more effectively and without overly cumbersome regulation, including needless duplication of regulatory regimes across state and territory borders.
Those that need these changes are charities both within my electorate of Bean and across Australia. At the beginning of the year, particularly in the ACT and Bean, we saw the unwavering resolve of our volunteer firefighters and SES as they fought some of the worst bushfires in our nation's history. Throughout those same bushfires, Lifeline saw a 10 to 15 per cent increase in its calls over the summer. Yet this was not the end. Far from the onset of the pandemic, calls to Lifeline have increased by 20 to 30 per cent on last year's numbers. Throughout it all, Lifeline have worked incredibly hard to maintain their critical service. During this time of COVID, Vinnies and many more have continued to work to ensure that those who are struggling and most vulnerable are able to hold their heads high and get the support they need. The community of Bean and communities further afield are strengthened by these hardworking charities. It's time that we, in turn, strengthened them through these non-controversial reforms.
The Senate report simply called on the Australian government to urgently provide a public response to the recommendations made in the ACNC review and called on the Australian government to commit to working with state and territory governments and the not-for-profit sector to develop a consistent national model for regulating not-for-profit and charitable fundraising activities within a time limit of two years. This inquiry took multiple submission and held hearings right across the country. These included Heart Support Australia who, working nationwide, explained their frustrations with inconsistencies regarding raffle fundraising and declarations, with one state allowing it to run a raffle up to a certain amount of money and another requiring it to declare every raffle. Volunteering Australia strongly welcomed changes to the sector, hoping for a cohesive and consistent regulation system, as did a plethora of peak bodies and charities throughout the sector.
An issue that consistently echoed throughout was the problem of online donations, as my colleague the member for Fenner has outlined. Whilst charities are the most trusted sector of the Australian economy, excessive costs on administration work to undermine that trust and work to make scarce resources scarcer. Two years on from these reviews, there is little to show. The government's inaction is not only costing charities, including their workforces and those they support; it frustrates those who support them. The advent of federation came about, in part, as a solution to the problematic inconsistencies and contradictions between states. One would have thought that 120 years of practice would allow us to understand and deal with an issue such as this. It's time that the minister responsible took some action and made the agreed changes for those in the charity and volunteering sector.
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (12:31): I'm pleased to speak to this motion and I commend the member for Fenner for highlighting the charities sector, which is often on the front line for the vulnerable in our communities. Charities are very close to my heart as I've had the privilege to contribute in one way or another ever since my childhood. I've also had the honour of establishing a charity called Zoe Support Australia, which assists young mothers in my home town of Mildura to access and complete education and gain employment. I know how challenging the process of setting up a charity is. Transitioning from a good idea, even when it's based on research, to pragmatic outcomes can be confounded by red tape and legalities. Obviously, risk must be managed. Problematically, there is a truism that you cannot legislate goodwill; however, the legislative and policy framework has now evolved to a point where charity work is fundamentally strangled by red tape.
The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, ACNC, was set up to simplify and clarify regulatory requirements, with a good dose of transparency thrown in. Fundraising is one area where the ACNC has the regulatory apparatus to hold charities to account, but the doubling up of this process at the state and territory level is unnecessarily bureaucratic. I welcome the leadership of New South Wales on harmonisation of the cross-jurisdictional governing of this sector. COVID-19 has provided an opportunity to consider many bureaucratic processes in a new way, leading to some excellent reform. The expansion of telehealth medical services is one such example. There's been some evidence over the last eight months of the need for cross-border jurisdictional reform. Imagine if the states had taken a national approach to hotspot definition and management, for example. In the same way, we need reform of charity fundraising to reduce red tape and cost.
One local charity in my home town of Mildura is Sunraysia Residential Services, led by the entrepreneurial CEO, Marian Luehman. She has taken fundraising to a whole new level. SRS provides residential and wraparound support for clients who live with a disability. Every dollar donated to SRS goes back 100 per cent into the community and stays in Sunraysia. SRS does not take out administrative charges and ensures that all fundraising and donations provide direct benefit to people with disabilities and their families. SRS has been in operation for 43 years, providing support for Sunraysia's ageing and disability population. SRS is 100 per cent locally owned and operated, with no subsidiaries throughout the state or nationally. SRS has built many independent living units, which have provided leverage to build more. It has commercial enterprises, such as the Benetook chook farm, and yesterday I attended the opening of their new Benetook general store. It was great to talk with local market holders and small businesses who have unfortunately had to close their businesses due to COVID restrictions and so have brought their product to the Benetook general store.
The wonderful aspect of this fundraising project is that clients can also participate meaningfully, showing their own artwork. SRS clients sell it on site, just as they are involved in the chook farm business, collecting eggs and learning marketing skills. Such innovation is not common in all charities. Indeed, the reality is that many agencies are generally working flat out just to provide services to their clients. Ideally fund-raising is holistically beneficial to meet its anticipated outcomes to make money as well serve clients. One thing is for sure: it should not be mired by red tape. This government is working to ensure this changes.
Another charity I providentially I bumped into yesterday was the Sunraysia Men's Shed group. They were flipping sausages in front of the local supermarket to raise funds for their activities. They told me they were being contacted by two to three new men each week inquiring to join the men's shed since COVID. Men's sheds achieve critical objectives, two of which are to give men the opportunity to connect with each other and to give back to local communities.
Another reason I'm inspired to meet with charities is because of their voluntary staff. They are often people who bring a wealth of skills and experience who choose to invest back into their local community. As International Volunteer Day is this week, I want to add my thanks to each and every person who so generously supports our charities.
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (12:36): Charities and not-for-profit organisations are made up of people who want to give something back to their community. They are often people who have experienced a difficulty or trauma in their life. They know how that affects other people and they want to do all they can to reduce the same experiences for others or to mitigate the impacts. They are often made up of people who are really conscious that they've had a terrific or privileged life and they know that not everyone else has that same life. They want to do what they can to give back to the community to help others have a terrific life.
By definition almost everyone who sets up a charity or a not-for-profit organisation at the start is a volunteer. It must be the case that every member of this chamber has the same experience I've had, even in the short 18 months of being the member for Dunkley, that people who are setting up charities and not-for-profit organisations struggle with the paper work and the requirements to reach charitable status; to get tax deductibility so that that wealthy people can donate and get their tax deduction; to follow all of the rules and regulations that are properly in place to make sure that charities and not-for-profits have good standards of governance and use donated money well. But often they are people who don't know how to understand what the rules are, let alone how to apply them.
In this year, in 2020, more than any other year, we have relied on those people in charities and not-for-profits to pick up the pieces in broken communities and broken families and to plug the holes that exist in government provision of services. We always do that, but we've seen more than ever in this year, in my state of Victoria, where physical connection and communication has been something that we haven't been able to do for months on end—the importance of local community groups to check in just to make sure people are okay, to facilitate connection when there isn't any, and to try to keep going, to try to keep looking after the people that they care for when they're also looking after themselves.
What we've tried to do in Dunkley is to bring those sorts of groups, the charities and not-for-profits, together online in what we called, imaginatively, the Dunkley charity and not-for-profit Zoom forums, to have connection between the people. Most are volunteers. Some are in organisations lucky enough to have funding, which means they can have paid workers, but most are volunteers. I can't name all of the groups that have been part of the three forums that we've had, but they include, for example, Quill Moves, which is literally two amazing women who donate their time to help disabled children and sometimes their parents to express themselves through writing and to record their experiences; the Bendigo Bank, which is well known for handing out grants to charitable organisations; the Belvedere Community Centre, which hasn't been able to be open all year but nonetheless has made and handed out 250 facemasks and is looking for more people to take more face masks for what they've done; the Fit to Drive Foundation, teaching young people to drive safely; the Frankston Peninsula Multiple Births Association, which is an amazing group of men and women who help families with twins and triplets to get together; and HALT, which is all about men's health. Groups. And there are so many more organisations.
What has been inspiring about these forums is that, yes, all these organisations have said, 'We need more help; there's not enough funding from the federal government. We need ongoing funding to help us with our administration costs and to be able to pay people to do work,' but they've moved beyond that and said, 'How can we help each other?' HALT has worked with the Frankston Peninsula Multiple Births Association and Mums Supporting Families in Need for mental health for men. Frankston Basketball has reached out and held forums for mental health for young players. Project C and Project O have worked together for artistic projects to help young people in need. We need a federal government that will do more to help these organisations get rid of the red tape. (Time expired)
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (12:41): I thank the member for Dunkley for her contribution. I agree with one of her comments—that many people get to a stage in life where they've had a rewarding, privileged life and they decide to give back and do charity work, which is very commendable. But I have found through my experience in life that there is another type of person who also does that, and they are the people not far from actually using the services of the charities. They are people who haven't had privileged lives. They are people who have had difficult lives. So it is across the board. Charities hold a special place in all Australians' hearts, and we should recognise that—and we do recognise that as a government. In fact, as I speak, my mother, Stella Conaghan, is at Vinnies in Kempsey doing her duty, because she's had a good life. As a generous people and a generous nation, we need to stand up to assist charities as best we can.
I'd like to acknowledge two very important charities in my electorate. The first is the Savings Place Food Bank in Port Macquarie and Kempsey. The Port Macquarie one was opened on 3 November by local man Dave Davis and Shalom House of Hope chairman Bob Eldridge. Dave worked for many years in the supermarket and food wholesale industry and, over the past decades, he's also contributed to the local communities, using his connections and contacts for charity, for good. By using his own funds, this year he set up a food bank warehouse in Port Macquarie and a central repository for rescue food. Dave gets fresh and frozen food and non-perishable or ambient products from supermarkets at their best-by date, and he says, 'If I won't eat it, I won't provide it. I won't sell it'. He then passes these products on to 10 food hubs throughout the Mid North Coast to provide to people in need.
Dave's rescue food goes to the Food Hub in Kempsey, several churches throughout the region, neighbourhood centres and soup kitchens. One remarkable fact: in the Macleay Valley alone last year, he provided over 100,000 breakfasts and lunches to schoolkids who were unable to provide their own food. I take my hat off to Dave and thank him for his extremely hard work. I hope in the future that the federal government, through advocacy from me, will be able to assist the food hub in the future. Dave estimates that since last November his operations have provided over half a million dollars worth of food or produce to community members in need.
The second great charity in my electorate is Loaves and Fishes. Loaves and Fishes has partnered with more than 20 businesses to provide locals experiencing hardship with rescue food and other staples. Loaves and Fishes was founded 50 years ago on the principle of giving people a hand up, not a handout. Loaves & Fishes Foodstore supports about 4,700 families throughout the Coffs coast by providing them with groceries at around one-third the cost of supermarket prices. It also provides emergency food parcels for residents and individuals on the Coffs coast who are in crisis. In addition to the food store, Loaves and Fishes provides an op shop, a furniture and white goods outlet, a community shed, a fishing club, a soup kitchen, and emergency accommodation.
Turning to the point of the member for Fenner's motion: our government is working to harmonise legislation around charities and to reduce red tape. Reducing red tape and provide providing a seamless, fluid administrative process is the secret. It provides certainty for those charities. It gives them an understanding of what they can and can't do, and, in turn, that provides a better process for those in need in our communities. Our government will continue to work with those charities and continue to provide funding for this important agenda.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (12:46): Thank you to the member for Fenner for raising the important issue of reform to the charity sector. Charities have an annual revenue of $155 billion, which accounts for over eight per cent of Australia's GDP. It is incredibly substantial. One in 10 employees in Australia work in this sector—that is over 1.3 million people. They also engage with over three million volunteers, providing over $12.7 billion of unpaid labour. Australia owes them a huge debt of thanks. More than their economic value, though, charities deliver vital services on behalf of the Commonwealth and state governments—from homelessness to disability, education and sport charities and not-for-profits. They are vital for the Australian community. As the motion explains, charities are the most trusted sector in Australian public life, yet the standard of compliance is more arduous and complex than for almost any other sector of the economy.
Treasury's five-year review of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commissionidentified fundraising law as a major burden on charities and recommended harmonising it across the country. Similarly, the Senate Select Committee on Charity Fundraising in the 21st Century called on parliament to harmonise fundraising laws late last year. The reporting requirements imposed on charities by government are far more stringent than those applied to corporate engagements, and compliance for fundraising activities is complicated by the seven different state and territory regimes imposed across the country. For example, in South Australia being a registered charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission is sufficient to give you the right to fundraise, but that's not the case in other jurisdictions. In New South Wales and most other states and territories you have to apply separately to the relevant state authority to fundraise, and then that application comes with a whole set of additional compliance obligations. For example, in New South Wales a director of a registered, non-religious charity cannot be paid unless an exemption is granted. The lack of consistency in fundraising obligations has been complicated further by the advent of digital fundraising platforms. There are just so many anomalies and red tape that need to be streamlined. Charities need to deal with so many things to conduct their everyday operations, and this takes away from their service delivery. We should, absolutely, make it possible for their focus to be on that service delivery. I urge the government to use the national cabinet to reform fundraising laws and to harmonise them across the country.
We can't talk about charities without talking about what a difficult year 2020 has been. The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed its own set of restrictions on charity fundraising. Restrictions on public gatherings, deceased foot traffic in central locations, and the economic downturn have all compounded to restrict the fundraising ability of the charity sector this year, at a time where, in fact, their services and assistance have been needed all the more. Modelling by the University of New South Wales Centre for Social Impact and Social Ventures showed that a drop in revenue by just 20 per cent for the charities sector would leave 88 per cent of charities immediately operating at a loss and 17 per cent would close their doors. That would result in 200,000 jobs lost.
Financial viability of charities is important, as they have less access to raising funds by debt as corporations and they absolutely need all the assistance they can get to comply with very strict and serious compliance regulations. While JobKeeper, for example, was welcomed, many struggled to meet the eligibility criteria of a 15 per cent loss in revenue against previous years, as charities have been growing. Many are start-ups, and hence their growth rate is rapid. While they were not down 15 per cent on last year, they were 80 per cent down against their projections, and demand for their services was much higher. In June I urged the government to bring forward Stronger Communities grants to help the charities sector, which is doing such wonderful and necessary work. I call on them again to do that.
I'd like to use this opportunity to thank the many hardworking charities in the community of Warringah. We have a wide variety of charities and community organisations that do wonderful work here and abroad, from Doctors International, who work overseas, to Community Northern Beaches, who deliver a fantastic range of services to locals. Men's sheds are spread throughout the electorate, providing practical solutions to men's health issues, and the Royal Far West has been educating and caring for the health of children from regional areas at Manly Beach since 1924. There are so many amazing mental health and sporting and disability charities across the electorate. There are far too many to name, but I thank you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
International Development Assistance
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (12:51): I move:
That this House notes that:
(1) 25 August 2020 marked three years since over 700,000 Rohingya, including more than 400,000 children, fled from targeted violence in Myanmar's Rakhine State, to Bangladesh;
(2) the camps in Bangladesh now host over 850,000 refugees in crowded conditions which is also impacting the lives of over 400,000 local Bangladeshis;
(3) an estimated 600,000 Rohingya remain in Rakhine State;
(4) since 2017, the Australian Government has provided over $260 million in lifesaving humanitarian assistance for displaced and conflict-affected communities in Bangladesh and Myanmar, working through UN agencies, international and national NGOs such as BRAC, Save the Children, CARE, World Vision, Plan International and Oxfam and their local partners to deliver food, shelter, water and sanitation, health and education services, and targeted support for women and girls to help combat risks including gender-based violence and trafficking;
(5) annual monsoons and cyclones have brought additional risks, and the COVID-19 virus has now arrived, with 88 confirmed cases to date in the Cox's Bazar camps and over 80 active cases in Rakhine State; and
(6) Australia remains committed to supporting Myanmar to create conditions on the ground conducive to voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable returns for all displaced peoples.
I rise to speak about our region's single biggest humanitarian crisis and the plight of the Rohingya people. In January this year I took my first official trip abroad as an MP on a parliamentary delegation to Bangladesh, hosted by Save the Children and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I was accompanied by Liberal senator Wendy Askew, Senator Kristina Keneally, the member for Cowan and the member for Fremantle to witness firsthand how our Australian aid benefits approximately 850,000 Rohingya refugees and the surrounding Bangladeshi host communities of 400,000 locals at Cox's Bazar.
I thank the honourable members and senators for this trip and for the opportunity to get to know them through the lens of compassion, bipartisanship and Australian foreign aid programs. I also thank the team from Save the Children for their dedication, not only for the complex arrangements for the parliamentary delegation but most importantly for their work supporting populations like the Rohingya and others around the world who find themselves in the very difficult circumstances born from conflict. Thank you to High Commissioner Jeremy Brewer, whom we accompanied on his first trip to Cox's Bazar to see the problems that the Australian Embassy in Dhaka works with on a daily basis—a large-scale humanitarian crisis that is now greatly exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic that all countries around the world face.
Myanmar has more than one-third of its population living in extreme poverty. It's one of the poorest countries in South-East Asia. Human rights violations were targeted at the Rohingya in Rakhine State in August 2017 by the military in Myanmar. Families, women and children were forced to flee on foot across the border to neighbouring Bangladesh to the coastal region of Cox's Bazar. Today there are an estimated 850,000 Rohingya refugees and 400,000 surrounding communities severely impacted by over 30 growing megacamps that now exist. These camps span as far as the eye can see. They have impacted Bangladeshis and an area that was once pristine elephant habitat. Australian aid agencies, including BRAC, deliver all manner of programs to these dreadfully disadvantaged peoples. The Australian government provides basic healthcare and vaccinations. We provide basic sanitation. We build toilets and shower blocks. We provide funding for primary education, for food vouchers and for counselling and medical services for those who have experienced violence, including women and girls. As part of our arrangement, Australians support the local host communities and health and education outcomes for Bangladeshis, and those members present will remember visits to a preschool, a school for those with a disability and a high school, where Australians provide local families and their children with hope and with opportunities.
Along with other countries such as the UK, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, Australia has contributed over $260 million to this crisis since 2017, and the foreign minister continues to work with the Bangladeshi and Myanmar governments to seek a way forward. Australia is spending foreign aid wisely, and it was on display every day of our trip as we were able to meet largely with women and children in the slums, in the camps and in safe places created by our government to protect the some 80 per cent of the camp population who are women and children from gender based violence.
On our first day, we visited the slumps of Dhaka. The conditions the members saw that day as we walked through the mud, mosquitoes, dense population and unsanitary environment were confronting, to say the least. I felt overwhelming empathy for those in Dhaka, but I felt proud to call myself and Australian who is assisting through my taxes and other donations the most vulnerable of the Bangladeshi population and, indeed, the Rohingya. We visited one woman who, through the BRAC program, was able to support her daughter to the age of 18 and thus avoiding her own daughter's child marriage at 12 as she herself was forced to do. The program not only assisted her family but created a surrounding micro-economy for her community. She graduated from ultrapoor status to poor status.
The situations in the camps at Cox's Bazar remains in crisis, and each year, with monsoon season, this population faces compounding difficulties that are unimaginable for most, if not all, Australians. I wish I could end my speech today with a proposed solution to this crisis, but I don't have the answers except to say that conditions for repatriation of the Rohingya to Myanmar must be safe, voluntary, dignified and sustainable.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Dr Allen: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (12:57): One of, if not the most discriminated people in the world: that's how UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described the Rohingya people. The level of suffering and the level of abuse that's been experienced by the Rohingya has been well documented, but it bears repeating in this place. I thank the member for Moncrieff for bringing this very important motion before the House. I'm very pleased to be able to make a contribution to it. I also echo her comments. I think it is important that we recognise that this issue is the single biggest regional humanitarian crisis. It is important we engage in it and it is pleasing that a number of members and senators were able to visit the region, particularly the camps at Cox's Bazar, and bring home that testimony that we've heard so eloquently from the member for Moncrieff. As her private member's motion notes, 25 August this year was three years since over 700,000 Rohingya, including more than 400,000 children, fled violence in Myanmar's Rakhine State to reach Bangladesh.
As we speak, there are 850,000 people living in crowded refugee camps in Bangladesh. I want to acknowledge the work that's being done around this—the extraordinary work by international and national non-government organisations such as BRAC, Save the Children, CARE, World Vision, Plan International, Oxfam and many local partners who are working with UN agencies on the ground. I strongly encourage the Australian government to maintain our efforts and to continue providing vital aid and assistance, which has made such a difference but must go on to continue to make such a difference for some of the most vulnerable people, in particular women and girls.
But, of course, the Rohingya people are not going anywhere. This crisis is not going to just disappear. There are still more than half a million Rohingya believed to be living in Rakhine State. UN investigators have warned that there is a serious risk that genocidal actions may occur or recur. Human Rights Watch has stated that the remaining Rohingya in Rakhine face government persecution and violence, are confined to camps and villages without freedom of movement and are cut off from access to adequate food health care, education and livelihoods. This must come to an end. The international community must help find a durable and lasting resolution of the situation in Rakhine State, with the objective of Rohingya people being able to go home and live in peace.
We must also continue to show our resolve as Australians and as an Australian government by demonstrating our humanity and compassion by helping Rohingya people. We should be an exemplar in this regard. We should be working with the region, particularly when it comes to the forced movement of people. We should be more directly engaged with agencies, including the UNHCR, as Labor has proposed. We are more than five years on from the Andaman Sea crisis. I acknowledge the work in particular of the Kaldor Centre in encouraging wide reflection on this from a range of perspectives on the situation of the Rohingya and the broader question on whether the region is any more welcoming or better prepared to respond to mass displacement and forced migration, because we need to consider this being a continuing factor, particularly in the context of COVID and the context of climate change as well.
I want to finish my remarks on this debate with a passage from Habiburahman's First, They Erased Our Name –a Rohingya speech:
I am three years old and will have to grow up with the hostility of others. I am already an outlaw in my own country, an outlaw in the world. I am three years old, and don’t yet know that I am stateless.
These are powerful words that capture the despair faced by the Rohingya people. We should listen to them. They demand our attention. It is vital that we engage with the humanitarian crisis in Rakhine state. It is vital that we turn our attention to what is going on in Cox's Bazar and other camps. It is vital that we remain focused and, indeed, refocus our efforts on providing humanitarian assistance to those in need, but we also must do all we can to help resolve this ongoing crisis for the Rohingya and for the world.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (13:01): For displaced people seeking refuge as a last resort, this is a difficult situation. Their preference, naturally, is to safely return to their homes and live without fear of war or persecution. At the same time, it is in the interests of regional stability to support displaced persons return to their homes when safe to do so, to avoid the upheaval, unrest and risks associated with the refugee crisis. That is why the Morrison government is committed to providing lifesaving humanitarian assistance for displaced and conflict-affected Rohingya communities in Bangladesh and Myanmar. In fact, we have committed $260 million since 2017, when this crisis first emerged.
Almost three years ago, over 700,000 Rohingya fled targeted violence in Myanmar's Rakhine state to Bangladesh. Today, there are nearly one million refugees in Cox's Bazar, the largest refugee camp in the world. There are a further 150,000 in Malaysia, India, Indonesia and other host countries. On first visiting the camps, United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, recalled observing unprecedented despair and trauma because of the violence endured in terrible living conditions, and we heard the member for Moncrieff's very moving recollection of this herself from when she visited just last year. There have been reports of killings, human trafficking and gender based violence inside the refugee camps. This is alongside the ongoing threat of human disease, including COVID-19 and malnutrition and, of course, natural disaster, which is something that affects this part of the world quite a lot.
Bangladesh has provided temporary protection for hundreds of thousands of Rohingya and we should be thankful for the refuge they have provided. This crisis has, no doubt, heavily impacted local Bangladeshi communities, who have ultimately been the first responders to this crisis. But, that being said, the Bangladeshi government's plan to relocate approximately 100,000 Rohingya, the first of which were moved just last week, to Bhasan Char, a volatile and remote island which emerged in 2006 as a result of silt, has been consistently opposed by the UN and other international aid organisations, including Human Rights Watch. We instead need to focus on achieving voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable return of displaced Rohingya to Myanmar.
As mentioned earlier, humanitarian assistance to avert a worsening refugee crisis is in the interests of regional stability. The International Crisis Group has warned of the potential for Islamic terrorist groups to take advantage of the plight of the Rohingya should the Myanmar government fail to resolve this crisis. Similarly, the United States Director of National Intelligence has said that the refugee crisis threatens Myanmar's democracy, heightening the risk of violent extremism and providing an opening for outside influence. As a democratic middle power, it is not in Australia's interests to let this unrest continue. Likewise, the lives of Burmese civilians should not be placed at risk as a result of any mishandling of the crisis.
Since 2017, Australia has provided over $260 million in humanitarian assistance for displaced and conflict-affected Rohingyas. In 2018, Australia was the third-largest donor to the UN's consolidated humanitarian appeal for displaced communities in Cox's Bazar, after the United States and the United Kingdom. Again, we've heard how that funding has been in action, on the ground, through the member for Moncrieff's very important contribution here this morning. This involved working closely with UN agencies and NGOs such as Oxfam, World Vision and BRAC, as well as Save the Children.
Save the Children has been doing some incredibly important work in this area, and CEO Paul Ronalds is a constituent of my electorate of Higgins. In September 2017, Save the Children expanded their work on the ground in Bangladesh to get immediate support to the new arrivals. In May 2018, Save the Children expanded their work on the ground and were running more than 90 child-friendly spaces and opened a new 20-bed primary health care centre to families. This year, with the outbreak of COVID, Save the Children has opened a new isolation and treatment centre, with a capacity of up to 60 beds.
Resolving this humanitarian crisis is a key priority for all governments. The success of Myanmar and the region more broadly hinges on it. We will continue to strive for the voluntary, safe, dignified and sustained return of displaced Rohingyas to Myanmar.
I would like to acknowledge a Bangladeshi who works here in Parliament House: Del, from hospitality, who now, through his taxes, supports his countrymen and women in Dhaka and Cox's Bazar.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (13:06): I also want to thank the member for Moncrieff for moving this motion and I, too, stand to speak on the dire situation faced by Rohingya people in Myanmar and Bangladesh—one of the worst situations in the region. Since 2017, more than 850,000 Rohingya have been violently forced from their homes in Myanmar into one of the largest refugee camps across the border in Cox's Bazar in Bangladesh.
The Rohingya people have often been described as the world's most persecuted minority. They're a predominantly Muslim group of people who have been effectively stateless for decades. The Rohingya are not recognised by the Myanmar government as one of the country's 135 distinct ethnic groups; nor are they considered to be citizens by the Myanmar government.
In January 2017, I had the opportunity to visit Myanmar and Rakhine state with a delegation of MPs with Save the Children, who do such great work in the region. We saw firsthand what the Rohingya were facing in those camps. Remarkably, we were able to visit some of these IDP camps which tens of thousands of Rohingya had been forced into following severe operations conducted against them by the military. These military operations were triggered by or were in response to nine Myanmar police officers being killed in October 2016 by Rohingya insurgents. Rather than a proportional response from the Tatmadaw, the Myanmar military, what we saw was a scorched-earth military response where the military razed thousands of Rohingya homes and villages across Rakhine state and further north, and there were estimates that around 3,000 Rohingya were killed; there were reports of children being killed; and there were reports of rape being used as a weapon of war. What we saw, effectively, was ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
The Rohingya people continue to be in an extremely dangerous situation. Not only are they fleeing the violence against them in Myanmar; they're also seeking refuge in Bangladesh—a country which, frankly, struggles to meet the housing, food and water needs of these hundreds of thousands of people in Cox's Bazar. And now, with COVID-19, a new challenge exists. Up to 90,000 people live on one square kilometre of land, making it one of the most densely populated areas on the planet. With families living in one-room plastic-and-bamboo shelters, let's be clear: physical distancing is next to impossible. In the communal bathrooms and the water points, soap and clean water are luxuries, making maintaining good hygiene extremely difficult. And, while we debate here whether we wear masks or not, in Cox's Bazar there are simply not enough masks to go around.
Without the assistance of UNICEF, Save the Children, World Vision, Oxfam and other international NGOs and UN agencies and the support from countries like Australia, among other countries, the situation would be even more dire than it is now. It's estimated that 600,000 stateless Rohingya remain in Rakhine State, some 140,000 of whom are in IDP camps or camp-like conditions. Those who decide to cross into Bangladesh are treated as migrants with no legal status, and their ability to maintain a safe haven in that country is uncertain at best.
While I have welcomed the Australian government's contributions to help with this crisis, I've also called here in this place for the Australian government to do more. In 2017, I called for the Australian government to consider reinstating the suspended autonomous sanctions ban on the Myanmar government. In fact, a bipartisan delegation went to see then foreign minister Julie Bishop with some of the feedback on these matters that we had received from our trip. We were obviously pleased that in 2018 we saw the government impose financial sanctions and travel bans on members of the Tatmadaw. In response to the release of the full report of the UN fact-finding mission on Myanmar, which documented the human rights abuses committed primarily against these ethic communities.
In 2020 Australia has of course been focused on our own health and economic crises and what we must do to get us through them. But, while we do this, we must also never forget about the millions of persecuted people who are in such difficulty around the world, people like the Rohingya. We shouldn't turn a blind eye to these devastations that they face. We have a duty, I think, as a wealthy nation to lend a hand when it is needed and, as a democracy committed to human rights, to speak out about atrocities and condemn and sanction the perpetrators of those crimes. Given the scale of the persecution by the Tatmadaw and the associated parties and the refugee burden being imposed on Bangladesh, it is appropriate that we take these steps, because I think it is probably true to say that, in years to come, each of us will be asking ourselves, 'What did we do when we were faced with these challenges?'
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (13:11): I thank the member for Moncrieff for putting this item on Federation Chamber's agenda. This is a very important issue. It is an issue that has not gone away; in fact, it has gotten worse in the past three years. This month marks three years since the Rohingya people were forced to flee Bangladesh because of persecution. It was 25 August 2017 when violence broke out in Myanmar's Rakhine State, driving more than 700,000 Rohingya Muslims to seek refuge in Bangladesh. At least 6,700 Rohingya, including at least 730 children under the age of five, were killed in that month that violence broke out. Most arrived in Bangladesh in the first three months of the crisis, with the vast majority being women and children and more than 40 per cent of them being under the age of 12. Many others, including elderly people, required additional aid and protection. They had nothing and they needed everything.
Most Rohingya are now stateless, with an estimated 600,000 people living in Myanmar's western Rohingya State. Cox's Bazar—which I know many members here have visited—which is located in Bangladesh is now one of the world's largest refugee camps, hosting somewhere in the order of 850,000 Rohingya, and is currently facing an unpreceded health crisis due to the risks of COVID-19 and other communicable diseases. Undoubtedly, the Rohingya crisis is the largest and the most complex humanitarian crisis in our region, in the Indo-Pacific. It also raises a national security problem, as it becomes a window for religious extremism and radicalism to seek to exploit. The Cox's Bazar district has long been known as a base for human trafficking, organised crime and other armed groups. The change in social dynamics brought about by the Rohingya refugee flux, together with increased economic vulnerability and pressures on the local population, creates a situation where many of these vulnerable communities can be preyed upon.
There are now over 1.2 million people requiring humanitarian assistance in Cox's Bazar, including both Rohingya refugees and impacted host communities in the Bangladesh area. The two main challenges that the Rohingya community is facing in terms of health are the risks of communicable diseases, increased by the congestion in the camps and the obvious prevalence of COVID-19, and the lack of maternal and newborn healthcare services. I'm pleased that, since August 2017, Australia has provided over $260 million in humanitarian assistance to address the Rohingya crisis in Bangladesh and in Myanmar, working with international and regional organisations to deliver effective and targeted support. Australia is supporting the government of Bangladesh to respond to immediate and long-term humanitarian needs in Cox's Bazar by providing funding and employing Australian civilian specialists. This includes in areas such as food, clean water, shelter, health and sanitation services, as well as counselling and medical services for those who have experienced violence, most especially women and young girls.
This assistance by Australia also aims to build refugees' and host communities' resilience and self-reliance, including through supporting access to education and skills development. Australia overall is one of the top five bilateral donors contributing humanitarian assistance to the Rohingya crisis. We recognise the disproportionate impact that this crisis has had on women and girls. During 2018-19 Australia's support reached over half a million women and girls, including providing counselling and medical services to women and girls who have experienced violence, and food and nutrition focused on children under five and women who are breastfeeding. Australia has also taken a leadership role in promoting disability inclusion in the camps, recognising that people with disabilities are often the first left behind in humanitarian responses.
The tropical monsoons with heavy summer rains experienced in Bangladesh are usually accompanied by cyclones and floods, often with catastrophic consequences. There are concerns that the monsoon season this year will increase the vulnerability of camps, elevate the risk of outbreaks of water-borne diseases such as cholera and threaten already precarious water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure and services.
Bangladesh is one of the world poorest countries, with almost one in four Bangladeshis living in poverty and 13 per cent per cent in extreme poverty. In 2019 Bangladesh was ranked 135th out of 189 countries in the Human Development Index. The impacts of seasonally extreme climate events, mass refugee migration and COVID-19 have altogether placed stress on the Bangladeshi government and people. This backdrop paints a particularly dark picture. The Rohingya need our support. It's important for Australia to continue to work with regional and international partners to create enduring solutions for the many problems that Rohingyas face. Australia remains committed to addressing this issue and to encouraging Myanmar to create conditions on the ground conducive to voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable returns for all displaced peoples.
Dr ALY (Cowan) (13:16): Can I start by thanking the member for Moncrieff for bringing this motion to the House. I was very fortunate to visit Bangladesh earlier this year with the member for Moncrieff. We went with Save the Children. We saw firsthand the important and valuable work that's being done on the ground, not just in the camps but also through Bangladesh.
The Rohingya are the forgotten people. The Myanmar government and military have undertaken a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing, forcing the Rohingya out of Myanmar and into Bangladesh. The Bangladesh government is doing its best. We know that and we saw that. We saw how much effort has put in from one of the world's poorest nations, Bangladesh, in accommodating as best they can one million Rohingya refugees. But they cannot sustain the number of refugees that have come in from Myanmar, and they cannot keep them there in the long term. It is not a long-term solution.
For those other members of the House who have been to Myanmar and have visited Cox's Bazar, it is extremely confronting to visit those camps. There are several things that stand out in my memory. One of them is what the representatives from the United Nations said when we asked them, 'What is your plan should there be a monsoon or a cyclone?' The response was, 'The best that we can plan for is 500,000 mass graves.' There is absolutely nothing else that they can do in that situation.
There are many more things that I could talk about. I could talk about the wonderful time that we spent with the women's group there, who, despite all the hardship that they are in, found time to smile and have a dance with the member for Moncrieff and me. I could talk about the makeshift sewerage system and the work that's being done there to provide a place for people to bathe and shower. I could talk about the wonderful children's school, and singing 'Twinkle twinkle little star' while sitting on the floor of a makeshift hut, again with a member from Moncrieff. I could talk about the homes consisting of nothing more than a couple of wooden stakes and a dusty tarpaulin. One of the things that stands out most in my mind, though, is sitting on a bus next to the member for Moncrieff, holding her hand as we approached the camp, and both of us taking in a collective breath as our eyes filled with tears at the sight of it. It confirmed for me something that I knew already, and that is that empathy and sympathy don't wear red or blue—or, in today's case, green or black—and that through bipartisanship and working together we can make a difference. We can ensure that the people of Rakhine State and the Rohingyas are not the forgotten people. We can ensure that our government does the best that it can and all that it can to work with the Bangladeshi government and the Myanmar government—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 13:21 to 13:33
Dr ALY: As I was saying, we can make a difference here through bipartisanship and through working together. We can make a difference in ensuring that, in Myanmar, the conditions are created to ensure the safe and dignified return of the Rohingya people to Rakhine state. One of the things that we learned when we went on the trip was that the best outcome that we could hope for for the one million displaced people is their return to their homes in a safe, sustainable and dignified manner. I urge all members of parliament, if they get an opportunity, to take up an offer to visit Cox's Bazaar and see for themselves. Brace yourselves for the confronting scenes that you will see. Once again, I thank the member for Moncrieff, not just for raising this but also for her friendship over the year.
Debate adjourned.
Proceedings suspended from 13:34 to 15:59
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Warringah Electorate: Recreation
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (15:59): I want to talk to you about beautiful Warringah, and in particular the Manly Scenic Walkway, which is regularly touted as one of the most beautiful walks in Sydney. I would argue that it's one of the most spectacular in the world. It has 20 kilometres of bushwalks that run from Spit in Mosman to North Head in Manly. The walkway meanders through beautiful native bushland and past harbour beaches and bays. This beautiful walk is just one of the many exciting holiday activities that Warringah offers in summer, and that's why we are calling on everyone, from both within Warringah and outside Warringah, to have a staycasion and rediscover Warringah and our local area. It's so important at a time when international borders are closed that we plan holidays at home and make sure we support our local tourism and hospitality industries. Across Mosman and Northern Beaches, tourism and hospitality employs over 13,000 people and contributes over $2.5 billion to the economy, so supporting these local businesses is good for the community, good for the economy and good for the soul. I absolutely urge everyone to come and discover. Maybe come and have a ride on the Manly ferries that are currently under threat. There is a strong push from the community to maintain the Manly ferries as they are very important to tourism in Manly. They bring thousands of people to our shores and it's very important that they be valued for what they represent. This is not a commuter mode of transport; it is for tourism.
Berowra Electorate: Binnowee Kindergarten
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:01): Binnowee Kindergarten recently celebrated its 85th birthday. The kindergarten opened in 1935 and, to mark the anniversary, they held a small ceremony to bury a time capsule. The staff and parents talked about the value of being able to represent life in Binnowee in 2020 to a future generation. With the global pandemic, it became even more relevant and valuable as an exercise, bearing a snapshot of life during 2020. The capsule contained a USB stick with information about current practices and events at Binnowee; a copy of the speech which was to have been made at the 85th birthday celebrations, which were sadly cancelled due to COVID-19; staff photos and photos of the building and playground; an ABC article on how staff Christmas parties are being done differently in 2020 due to COVID-19, with Binnowee featured in that article; a disposable face mask and bottle of hand sanitiser; and a Magna-Tile, which is a popular building block that children use each day. I want to acknowledge Sara Andersson, the preschool director, and Amy Hunter, the chair of the Binnowee board for their leadership of the Binnowee Kindergarten, particularly through the challenges this year has presented. I also want to thank the teachers and early childhood educators, Julie Watts, Kathy Simpson, Debbie Lucas, Kelly Freer, Nicole Freer and Donna Bissett. I want to acknowledge the 85th birthday organising committee for the work they put into celebrating this important milestone. I also want to thank the teachers and the leadership of Binnowee Kindergarten for all they do. Congratulations, Binnowee Kindergarten, on 85 years. This is a fantastic way to mark your history.
Greenway Electorate: Schofields Station
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (16:02): I rise today to advocate on an issue I've discussed many times in this place: the lack of parking at Schofields train station. Surrounded by growing housing estates, the parking facilities at Schofields Station are woefully inadequate. The car park is full before 7 am, resulting in residents often having to park very far away and trek on foot across uneven terrain to get to the train just to get to work. Following sustained campaigning by myself and Schofields residents, the New South Wales Liberals finally caved and promised they would build a multistorey commuter car park at the station by the end of 2020. The local Liberals even campaigned on the project in the lead-up to last year's state election. Fast-forward 18 months and what do we have? Yet another broken promise. Schofields Station still doesn't have the multistorey car park we were promised and, worse, the New South Wales Liberals have now decided they won't follow through on their promise and have decided there will not be a multistorey car park built at the site. Instead, they will build an at-grade, or flat, car park in an area which many locals believe will just cause more congestion. It is completely unacceptable. Locals are fed up with the spin and broken promises. The overwhelming message is that Schofields Station needs a multistorey car park. Build the car park that was promised.
COVID-19: Vaccines
Mr CRAIG KELLY (Hughes) (16:04): In early August, Australia's Professor Tom Borody did some media. We talked about him having a cure for coronavirus, based around Ivermectin. He gave interviews about it and spoke about it, yet our TGA authorities condoned Professor Borody. They didn't only criticise him; they went out of their way to say he was wrong and asked for doctors to report anyone that was 'inappropriately administering' Ivermectin to their patients.
Only last week we saw a paper which shows how correct Professor Borody was. This was a study done out of Argentina which involved an Australian researcher from Adelaide. They looked at 1,195 healthcare workers from four hospitals in Argentina, where 788 received Ivermectin and Carrageenan and the other 470 didn't take it. Of the 470 that didn't take Ivermectin or Carrageenan, there was a 58.2 per cent infection rate. Of those 470, 237 became infected with coronavirus. Of the 788 that took Professor Borody's recommended treatment, there was not one single infection—58 per cent versus zero. Professor Tom Borody, an Australian genius, was correct, and medical authorities need to review the evidence and recommend Ivermectin as a treatment for coronavirus.
COVID-19: Income Support Payments
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:05): There are so many Australians that are being left behind by the Morrison Liberal government—so many when it comes to employment and so many when it comes to jobs. We have seen many workers left out in the cold when it came to the JobKeeper wage subsidy and we haven't seen a long-term vision from this government when it comes to long-term job creation into the future. We have had a lot of slogans, including the JobMaker program. Of course, I would welcome anything that would help young Australians gain and retain meaningful employment. I am not sure that their program is going to do this. It is a short-term program. But, worse than that, it draws an arbitrary line in the sand despite Australians of all ages looking for work.
Many have lost their jobs during the pandemic and will continue to in this ongoing recession. But, the Liberal Party has said. 'If you're under 35, we will provide a short-term wage subsidy but, if you're over 35, you're on your own.' Caroline from Morphett Vale told me how frustrated she is. She said that the odds are already stacked against her as a mature-aged worker, and now she is competing with subsidised jobseekers. Another constituent raised this with me also. Caroline—this time from Seaford Rise—who worked for Qantas is furious that there is nothing to help those over 35. The lack of support is impacting people in ways that we couldn't have imagined. I have been reached out to by a pilot who is now receiving no support while planes are grounded. This is not good enough. These people deserve support.
Melbourne Fringe Festival
COVID-19: Arts
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (16:07): Like me the people of Higgins are passionate about the arts. Recently I was thrilled to participate in the Melbourne Fringe Festival's event Multiply. Together, hundreds of local amateur movers and shakers participated in a socially distanced contemporary dance event. Our show-stopping dance moves will be immortalised forever in a stunning Fringe film which will be available next year. So watch out for it. Thank you to the CEO Simon Abrahams and his team at the Fringe and, of course, all the talented artists and participants who contributed to this event.
I am proud that the Morrison government delivered $275,000 to the Melbourne Fringe to deliver safe and viable key festival programs for independent artists and venues through COVID. The funding was part of the Morrison government's $250 million Creative Economy Support package, which was designed to help restart activities such as festivals, concert tours and events as we reopen after COVID. This year our government has announced almost $800 million in extra arts funding. That's on top of our record annual investment of around $750 million in core funding. I am proud of our arts sector. That's why I advocated for an inquiry for the arts to ensure that we provide hope and confidence to the sector as they seek to grasp the opportunities of a post-COVID world. As they say in the industry, the show must go on—and that is what the Morrison government is committed to supporting.
Haweil, Mr Joseph
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:08): My constituent and good friend Councillor Joseph Haweil was elected mayor of the City of Hume, making him the first mayor of Assyrian background in Victoria and the second-youngest mayor in Hume's history. Hume and, of course, Calwell have a very large Assyrian and Chaldean community. Joseph and his family are proud members of that community, and his elevation to mayor is a milestone for their representation at local government level. There was also lots of cheering from the Assyrian community in Western Sydney, where Joseph well known and highly regarded.
Joseph has served as Aitken Ward councillor since 2016. During that time he has acquired the reputation as the most anti-infringements councillor in Victoria, by making a first-time infringement offence a legitimate ground for waiving a fine. He has slashed the penalties for 11 parking fine categories from $83 to $33 and delivered a record reduction in the number of fines issued. Joseph has also taken on the pokies industry and was successful in achieving a permanent cap for the number of pokies in Hume City Council. As a recognition of his own Assyrian community, Joseph secured the naming of a local street after the capital of ancient Syria, Nineveh Road in Craigieburn, recognising the cultural heritage of Ancient Mesopotamia. This is a small but significant gesture for a beleaguered people who have no country, who have suffered continuous persecution for the past 2,000 years, and who are grateful to call Australia home.
Bennelong Electorate: GLIA Diagnostics
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:10): One thing that makes me particularly proud of Bennelong is our innovative spirit. I'm often here talking about the innovations of our big companies, but underneath these behemoths are hundreds of engineers, scientists and developers who are all working hard to change the way we live. Many of these are housed at the Macquarie Park innovation hub, a home for start-ups to find their feet as they develop their new products.
One such start-up is GLIA Diagnostics, a game-changer in the emerging and urgent area of concussion treatment. GLIA uses a blood test to identify if a biomarker associated with brain injury is present. With a simple, handheld finger-prick test, it can determine if the effects of concussion are over or if the body is at risk of further, more damaging, secondary concussion. Concussion tests to date have been subjective, haphazard and lengthy. A simple finger-prick test that can return results cheaply and instantly could have a huge impact for professional sports and also for community sports, which, often, would not normally have tests at all. The impact this could have on armed forces and on triaging at hospitals is also immense. Congratulations to Edmond and his growing team for this breakthrough, which will revolutionise so many parts of our society. We wish you all the best for the future and generally look forward to seeing this device in the marketplace, changing and saving lives.
Centrelink
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (16:11): Rob lives in my electorate in Langwarrin. His father-in-law, Fred, is almost 94. Recently Fred's wife passed away, and Fred needed to go to Centrelink to sort out the pensions. Fred doesn't know how to use the computer and he gets flustered over the phone, so his only choice was to go and attend at Rosebud Centrelink. He had to wait 90 minutes in a queue, 94-year-old Fred. No-one offered him a seat. And when he got to the front of the queue, he was told: 'Sorry, you've got the wrong paperwork. You'll need to come back another day.' Later that day he had a fall and was taken to the hospital, and his family are sure that that is linked to him exerting himself by standing for 90 minutes. He was at the hospital for eight hours before being discharged and later having more treatment.
Rob's question for the government is: surely Centrelink could be properly funded with more staff to have better care for the elderly? Surely there could be better processes in place? My question for the minister is: how can you continue to push ahead with the closure of Mornington Centrelink, a mere 19-minute drive from Rosebud, on the spurious claim that there isn't enough demand for face-to-face services? It's not about computer predictions. It's not about austerity and saving money. It's about people and their lives, Minister. Please don't shut Mornington Centrelink. And get more staff into Centrelink to look after the people who need it.
Barker Electorate: Regional Agricultural Show Development Grants Program
Mr PASIN (Barker) (16:13): Every year I attend most agricultural shows and field days in my electorate. These events bring families and farmers together, build community spirit and help bridge the divide between country and city. Unfortunately, almost all of them were cancelled this year on account of COVID-19. That's why our government has invested $34 million in grants to make sure they bounce back next year. Two months ago the government launched a package to reimburse eligible costs for shows and field days who had to cancel. In my electorate, there are 18 shows and show societies that will benefit directly from this funding: the Kapunda Show run by the Kapunda & Light Agricultural Society; the Coonalpyn Show run by the Coonalpyn & District Agricultural & Horticultural Society; the Murray Bridge Show; the Mil Lel Show; the Mount Pleasant Show; the Keith and Tintinara District Show Society; the Lions Club of Lucindale, that put on the fabulously successful South East Field Days; the Karoonda Farm Fair; the Riverland Field Days; the Millicent Agricultural and Horticultural Show; the Penola Show Society; the Naracoorte Pastoral and Agricultural Society; the Pinnaroo Show Society; the Loxton Agricultural and Horticultural Society; the Mount Gambier Show; the Kingston SE Show; the Callington Agricultural and Horticultural Society; and the Bordertown Spring Festival & Show. They are all beneficiaries of this program. I fear that, but for this program, they wouldn't have been able to survive this year, where they haven't been able to collect revenues because they haven't been able to have shows. I'm very pleased we'll see shows back—hopefully—in 2021.
Child Care
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (16:15): Child care costs too much. It costs women too much, it costs families too much and it costs our nation too much. In the 12 months to March, my electorate saw childcare costs rise substantially. The increases in my electorate ranged from 4½ per cent to 21½ per cent. At a 21½ per cent yearly increase, the cost of child care would double every 3½ years. Child care costs so much that many, many people are forced to work less. Instead of working full-time, a parent—generally, the mother—will work only three days, or will not work at all, because the cost of full-time child care is just too great.
The consequences of this are significant for our economy, for our productivity and for the health and wellbeing of families, women and children. Kids lose out, women lose out and the economy loses out.
But Labor has a plan. Under this plan, Labor will scrap the $10,560 childcare subsidy cap, which often sees women losing money from an extra day's work; fix the maximum childcare subsidy rate to 90 per cent; and increase childcare subsidy rates and taper them for every family earning less than half a million dollars a year. I strongly encourage all families in my electorate to visit childcarecalculator.com.au, enter your personal details and find out for yourself how much better off you'll be under an Albanese Labor government.
COVID-19: Travel Agents
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (16:16): I rise today to talk about the travel agents COVID support package.
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16 : 16 to 16 : 28
Mr O'DOWD: For some time now I have been speaking with travel agents in my electorate, including Mark Winters and Phil Kelly of Departure Point in Gladstone; Leisa Davis of Helloworld in Gladstone, Biloela and Rockhampton; Jo Maguire of Helloworld in Emerald; and Wendy Mulry Travel in Rockhampton. Each agent told me of their financial struggles as a result of COVID-19.
Last week the federal government announced a one-off payment to assist travel agents. The payment is based on turnover. This is to help travel agents continue to process customer refunds, pay back commissions and recoup lost rent and wages, which will help in the industry recovery process. The Australian Federation of Travel Agents, AFTA, has welcomed the announcement. I also know that it is welcomed by the travel agents and providers in my electorate of Flynn. I want to give a big thank you to the Morrison-McCormack government for helping these small businesses. Some were on the brink of bankruptcy through no fault of their own.
Hanukkah
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:29): Over eight days Jewish Australians and Jews right around the world will gather to light the Hanukkah menorahs, display them proudly and come together to appreciate both ancient miracles and more recent ones. The celebration of Hanukkah is inspired by the story of the miracle of the lamp: how a ration of oil—enough for one day—burned for eight. For more than 2,000 years, Hanukkah, the festival of lights, has reminded the world of the Jewish community's enormous strength, resilience and ability to find hope in times of despair. This message of hope will be particularly resonant in 2020, a year that has tested so many of us so much and forced us to spend long periods separated from family and loved ones. It will make this year's celebrations particularly special and one that I look forward to celebrating with Melbourne's Jewish community which I attend the Pillars of Light festival at Federation Square next week.
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the huge contribution that Jewish Australians have made to our country, from Sidney Myer to Frank Lowy, Carol Schwartz, Harry Seidler and so many more. It's clear, I think, to all of us that modern Australia would be unrecognisable without the contribution made by so many Jewish Australians. And so, on behalf of federal Labor: Hanukkah sameach. Happy Hanukkah.
Men's Shed Movement
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:31): In 2006, when civic participation in Australia dropped to 18.6 per cent, many in this country cried that we were seeing a crisis of civil society. Only two weeks ago the Weekend Australian reported on ABS data that civic participation has now dropped to 9.4 per cent. That's fewer than one in 10 Australians participating in community organisations. I raise this today firstly to acknowledge that there is an issue but secondly to pay tribute to one organisation: the men's shed movement. Today the chair and executive director of the Australian Men's Shed Association are here in parliament.
The organisation of sheds swim against the tide. At a time when community organisations are struggling, they are booming. They are growing. They are mushrooming across the country. They do this because they have a unique operating model. They deal with issues of social inclusion and men's mental health, but they don't do so by hanging a shingle outside every men's shed, saying: 'Got a mental health problem? Come on in.' They do it in a way which is simple and engaging with everyday blokes, and full credit to them. May civil society continue to rebuild and may men's sheds be a shining light for that rebuilding.
Gordon, Mr Peter
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:32): I rise to acknowledge the end of an era as Peter Gordon, President of the Western Bulldogs, has announced that he will stand down from his second stint at the helm of the Dogs. He leaves an unparalleled dynasty. In the best of times and in the worst of times for the dogs, Peter was there leading the way. In his first stint as president, back in 1989, he was there for the worst of times. The dogs were on the brink, second last on the ladder and millions of dollars in debt. The VFL and Ross Oakley took the opportunity to try to force a merger with Fitzroy. They didn't reckon with Peter Gordon, who alongside Irene Chatfield, Dennis Galimberti and the Footscray community deployed an audacious legal strategy to save the Dogs for future generations of fans.
Returning for his second stint as president, Peter would this time be there for the best of times: when the Dogs won the most magical, most sentimental flag in the history of the competition when the dogs won their first flag in 62 years in 2016. Again Peter was vindicated. Tom Boyd was worth every cent. It was under his presidency that the Bulldogs fielded a team in the first AFL Women's match against the Demons before going on to win the AFLW flag in 2018.
During his time as President, the Western Bulldogs have played an invaluable leadership role in my community in Melbourne's west through the Western Bulldogs community fund and projects like the Sons of the West men's health program. They also exited poker machines altogether during his time. What a legacy. Thank you, Peter Gordon, a true son of the west, a great Australian and a Bulldog through and through.
Fraser Island: Bushfire
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (16:34): It's absolutely heartbreaking to see the devastation that's being wreaked on the flora, the fauna and the residents by the ongoing bushfire on Fraser Island in my electorate of Wide Bay. Fraser Island is internationally renowned for its pristine beaches, its magnificent forests and tranquil lakes and pools. It's home to over 40 species of mammals, 70 species of reptiles and 350 bird species, but over the last six weeks this fire has devoured more than 40 per cent of the island's land mass, destroying their habitat.
The fire is another blow to the island's tourism industry, following the COVID-19 pandemic, which has heavily impacted local tour operators and accommodation services, including Kingfisher Bay, a major employer on Fraser Island. Everyone, including the community and all levels of government, will need help for the island to recover. Disaster assistance is being made available by the Australian government to help with firefighting efforts. I pay tribute to everyone—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 16:35 to 17:01
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Thanks, colleagues. In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Buy-Now Pay-Later Industry
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) in November 2020, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) released a report entitled, Buy now pay later: an industry update, which set out the key observations about the Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) industry, the experiences of consumers and recent regulatory developments;
(b) the report found that:
(i) more than 1 in 5 BNPL consumers surveyed missed a payment in the past 12 months, resulting in over $43 million in late fees for the 2018-19 financial year;
(ii) most BNPL consumers who had missed a payment had used multiple BNPL providers in the past six months;
(iii) nearly 40 per cent of BNPL consumers surveyed who had missed a payment in the past 12 months also had a payday loan or similar; and
(iv) 20 per cent of all BNPL consumers surveyed said they had cut back, or went without, essentials, like meals, to make their payments;
(c) BNPL providers have stated no more than 1 per cent of their consumers have been in financial hardship during COVID-19, and that this is inconsistent with the observations contained in the ASIC report for the 2018-19 financial year; and
(d) BNPL providers are not regulated by the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 and are therefore not bound by responsible lending obligations; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) respond to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Economics entitled Credit and Financial Services Targeted at Australians at Risk of Financial Hardship tabled in the Parliament in February 2019 as a matter of urgency;
(b) introduce a bill that would amend the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to enact the recommendations of the Government's Review of Small Amount Credit Contract Laws;
(c) extend the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to BNPL providers; and
(d) ensure no changes are made to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 that would undermine or weaken responsible lending obligations as per the recommendations of Commissioner Kenneth Hayne.
The buy-now pay-later industry, I believe, is a tsunami waiting to happen. Afterpay, Zip Pay, Openpay, Payright and BrightePay are just a few of the players in the emerging buy-now pay-later sector—a sector that is not subject to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act and, therefore, not bound by responsible lending obligations. And I think that that's the real crux of the concern here.
The primary reason that the arrangements do not fall under the current definition of 'credit' in the act is because there is no interest charged. Instead, they charge the customer a late fee for any missed payments. While a late fee here or there may not seem much, we're not talking about an overdue library book. In the 2019-20 year, Afterpay earned almost $70 million in late fees, and I note that there was a 49 per cent increase on their last financial year. That's huge growth. You just have to look at the ASIC report: $4.8 million in transactions occurred in the year to June 2020. There were 1.9 million users, spending a total of $824 million.
Young people, the cohort that has suffered the highest unemployment and underemployment, are the most affected. ASIC found that, of those who missed their repayments, almost 40 per cent also held a small credit contract, such as a payday loan, and over 55 per cent had used at least two different buy-now pay-later services. In the absence—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives —
Sitting suspended from 17 : 03 to 17 : 16
Ms SHARKIE: We're talking about buy-now pay-later. In the absence of reasonable and measured regulations, providers are permitted to stack debt after debt on financially vulnerable consumers like Jean. Jean sought advice from the Community Legal Centre because she was overwhelmed with her debts. Jean had a significant home loan; seven credit cards, all with high monthly repayments; a personal loan; and owed $5,000 to a buy-now pay-later provider. For several years, Jean had been in and out of work, had hardship agreements on nearly all of her credit cards and had been denied a hardship request on her personal loan. Despite all this, she received a $5,000 payment from a buy-now pay-later provider which stacked another debt onto her already very shaky financial situation. The impact goes beyond a poor credit history. It means going without food, electricity, fuel and basic everyday items. This isn't anecdotal evidence; this is borne out of the findings of the ASIC's report into the sector, which found that 20 per cent of all buy-now pay-later customers, one in five, were going without essential supplies in attempts to meet their repayments. Adam is another person. He is a young man who struggles with literacy issues and relies on a support person in his dealings with lawyers. Adam was being assisted by the Community Legal Centre in relation to responsible lending claims for a car loan and several personal loans. He was struggling to meet his repayments and became dependent on buy-now pay-later products to make ends meet. In one month, Adam's total repayments were over $500. This was untenable. His debts spiralled further out of control and he regularly uses buy-now pay-later arrangements to buy everyday essentials, such as groceries, petrol and discretionary items.
The great challenge is that the industry itself talks about a voluntary code, but that is not enough. The sector maintains that only one per cent of their customers are in financial hardship. The figure is not reflected in the ASIC report and it is not reflected in the experiences of our financial counsellors and our Community Legal Centres. There is predatory behaviour going on behind the buy-now pay-later scheme. It reminds customers. It sends them emails saying, 'Go and buy now. We'll lend you the money.' We need to act now to reduce the scarring impact on these financially vulnerable customers. I understand the government is hesitant to regulate, and I'm sure that there are many members in here who actually have shares with buy-now pay-later companies. I'm quite sure of that. That is where we are going wrong in this nation. We need to ensure that this industry runs under the same level of protections for consumers if they have a credit card. There should be no difference. We need to act and we need to act now.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (17:19): I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (17:19): I thank the member for Mayo for putting this important issue on the agenda. Buy-now pay-later schemes, for those who don't know, allow you to receive a good or a service now and pay for it later. They're a little like a modern-day lay-by scheme. Some of the most common ones in Australia are Afterpay and Zip Pay. I wish to declare here that I am a shareholder in both Afterpay and Zip Pay. I'm also a shareholder in most of their competitors—the major banks—as I expect many Australians are, through their superannuation funds.
Buy-now pay-later schemes are increasingly popular in Australia. From 2010 to 2016, credit card usage in Australia was on the increase, but since 2016 it's been in decline. Most of that decline has been taken up by buy-now pay-later schemes. As of June 2019, there were 6.1 million open buy-now-pay-later accounts in Australia. That means one-third of adults have a buy-now pay-later account. There are some 56,000 merchant agreements—that is, agreements between providers of buy-now pay-later services and merchants—and the amount of credit extended through these schemes has doubled from 2017-18 to 2018-19. To my mind, buy-now pay-later schemes provide consumers with important elements of choice. As the recent ASIC report, No. 672 of November 2020, says, 'They provide consumers with increased choice and access to payments and credit options with unique features and benefits.' I think it's important we keep that in mind. There's a reason consumers like buy-now pay-later schemes.
As the member for Mayo pointed out, the missed-fee-payment revenue for buy-now pay-later schemes was $43 million last. I agree that's of concern. That's up 38 per cent from the previous year. But over that same period the number of transactions almost doubled, from $16.8 million to $32 million, an increase of 90 per cent, and the value of all transactions went up 79 per cent, from $3.1 billion to $5.6 billion. So, in a year when late-payment fees went up by 38 per cent, the number of transactions increased by 90 per cent and the value of transactions increased by 79 per cent. By way of comparison, in 2016-17, the last year for which I could find data, $1.5 billion in credit card late fees—not interest—was charged. I think that shows you that there's a difference in scale. Credit card late payment fees are an order of magnitude higher than the missed payment fees in the buy-now pay-later schemes.
It's true that some providers in the buy-now pay-later space rely on late fees to make the economics work, but not the most profitable and not those with the biggest market share. Zip, for instance, receives less than one per cent of its revenue from late fees and relies largely upon merchant fees to make its economics work. Afterpay, which accounts for 73 per cent of the value of transactions in Australia, accounts for only 27 per cent of buy-now pay-later debt, and it has a number of mechanisms in place to avoid consumers falling into a debt trap. Consumers are suspended from using the service if they miss a payment. The average transaction value for Afterpay is $147. Consumers are unable to revolve their debt, and Afterpay, like the other responsible providers, generates 85 per cent of its revenue from merchant fees, which is what we would hope.
As the Senate Select Committee on Financial Technology and Regulatory Technology reported in its interim report in September last year, 'Innovative fintech companies are using technology to improve customer experience and outcomes and solve customer problems.' As that report identified, there is an opportunity for Australia to host a vibrant and growing fintech sector which has the potential to revolutionise financial services in Australia, increase competition in the sector and provide better outcomes for consumers.
From October 2021, design and distribution obligations will apply to buy-now pay-later schemes, and I welcome that. I think it's an important issue of customer assurance. This will require issuers of buy-now pay-later products to identify in advance a class of consumers for whom the product is appropriate and to make sure that they direct distribution to that target market. In December 2019, a little over a year ago, the Australian Finance Industry Association, the relevant industry body, announced that it would develop an industry code of practice for buy-now pay-later providers, which will in part seek to respond to the findings in the earlier ASIC report on this topic. Again, I also welcome this. I understand that the industry code of practice will be published and become effective from 1 March 2021.
Finally, ASIC also has a product intervention power under the Treasury Laws Amendment (Design and Distribution Obligations and Product Intervention Powers) Act 2019. I think it's important we keep in mind these products give consumers choice, allow them to smooth their consumption and keep them away from riskier high-interest products.
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (17:24): I applaud the member for Mayo for bringing this important motion to this chamber. It is a motion that rightly seeks to resist the repeal of important responsible lending laws and that also requests that the government ensure that there is appropriate regulation of the buy-now pay-later sector.
I'll deal with some of the key recommendations in this motion in reverse order. I'll start with the responsible lending provisions that are currently under threat by this government and point out that this was one of the key recommendations arising from the Hayne royal commission. Indeed, if one looks at recommendation 1.1, one sees the royal commission recommending that the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 'should not be amended to alter the obligation to assess unsuitability.' It stressed, rightly, that consumer protection lies at the heart of appropriate regulation of our financial services sector. Indeed, Commissioner Hayne's report described the NCPP laws as 'a critical legislative step in enabling good-faith trading between credit providers and consumers'.
Really, what we're seeing with attempts to weaken these laws is a bad solution in search of a problem. We agree that strong credit flows are important to the economy, but we have not seen any evidence put forward that weakening consumer credit protections is a way of ensuring credit flows in parts of the economy where it might not be as strong as it ought to be. In the House economics committee last week, the Governor of the Reserve Bank did point to the dangers of investment growth not being as strong as we would like in some areas of business investment, but that reflects a failure on the part of the government to create the right business investment environment. It is not going to be remedied by weakening consumer protection laws, particularly for those who are most vulnerable in our society. Indeed, this is something that Treasury itself indicated in its submission to the royal commission. It said that responsible lending laws were providing stability to the financial services system overall. It said that these protections were not impeding the flow of credit.
We see the cost of credit at the moment in the economy as low as it's ever been. The solution to strengthening business investment is not to reduce protections for the weakest in our society; it is an entirely different one. A very broad church wants responsible lending laws retained. A coalition of more than 200 groups and individuals, including Allan Fels, Ian Ramsay and Kevin Davis, have signed an open letter calling on this House to block proposed changes to responsible lending laws. This letter was signed by many of Australia's most eminent experts in economics and financial sector regulation. The letter says the government's plans to ease lending obligations will inflict long term damage on the community. It is important to note that APRA and ASIC were not properly con in this. Sean Hughes, ASIC's commissioner with responsibility for credit, had no input and got no heads up. APRA heard about this process through the media.
This will hurt Australians. I hear many examples of vulnerable individuals who need this protection giving heart-rending stories to me and my staff in my electorate. They need these protections to stay in place. We can look at evidence from the Consumer Action Law Centre, from CHOICE, from Financial Counselling Australia and from the Redfern Legal Centre. They say:
… we are unable to say anything positive about the Government's plans. The repeal of responsible lending obligations for almost all forms of consumer credit is the most short-sighted, poorly thought out policy proposed by a government in credit or financial services in recent memory.
The key point I want to make to start off is that we must retain appropriate regulation for vulnerable consumers in our financial sector regulation. As to other elements of this motion, I think the member for Mayo rightly points out that the BNPL sector is one that is rapidly growing. We need to look at this in the context of maintaining and strengthening consumer protection, particularly for our most vulnerable. It is of concern that so much revenue in this sector is accruing as a result of late fees. It is of concern that many people who have missed a BNPL payment were using multiple providers. I say we need to strengthen consumer protection. We do not need to weaken it, particularly given where our economy is at and given the rise of BNPL providers.
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (17:29): I welcome the member for Mayo's motion today, which points out some very important observations that have been made in previous inquiries, particularly around buy-now pay-later arrangements around the country. You can see in this debate that we have this general tension between providing credit to more and more risky clients and making sure that it's done in a way that is fundamentally safe that gives them an opportunity to access the credit system like the rest of us. The member for Mayo provided some evidence, which is obviously already on the record, of buy-now pay-later clients missing payments, using multiple accounts and, finally, going without the essentials in order to meet those financial obligations. I recognise those concerns.
From the government's perspective, we're trying to make sure that every Australian, if they are going to access what we call credit at the margins, does it in as a safe a way as possible. We all know that we hit speed bumps along the way—paying the rego for one's vehicle can be a major shock, coming every 12 months or so—so these short-term credit arrangements provide a level of flexibility that allows someone to obtain credit over, say, a 16-day minimum through to a month or a few months to be able to meet that obligation. Clearly, that means that, by definition, they're going to have to go without at some point in the cycle, if you're looking at household expenditure, in order to meet those obligations. And, yes, there's going to be interest on top of that. Of course, if we make it too safe for people, then those people are the first who will get no credit whatsoever. That's the complexity around this matter.
I'm glad that the member for Wentworth initially laid out some of the important work that's done by Zip and Afterpay, because, in Zip's case, just one per cent of their revenue comes from late payments. I think that's a reasonable assessment of what they are doing. While it doesn't fully and forensically pull apart their revenue model, it shows that late fees are clearly not an important part of their revenue model. Also from the member for Wentworth is the incredible expansion of these services and that the late-fee and penalty component of them has not increased in any way like the amount of overall lending that's occurring. By that point, we could argue that they have been responsible by making sure that the overwhelming group to whom they are lending have had careful and prudent financial hardship provisions ready. They've also been expected to see that these clients have sufficient disposable income over the period of that lending to ensure that, if they do hit a subsequent hurdle, they can still meet those payments. Remember that these providers will, again, change the conditions of that lending if financial hardship appears. Clients always have the option to make it clear that that has occurred, and then these lenders are obliged to do that. Obviously there have been announcements in the budget about financial inclusion and the importance that SACCs play in that respect.
I think that the balance has to be right. The only balance we can really see here is with the overall lending in the sector, which is a very good indication. Before we get too alarmed by the number of late fees, we need to remember how many and what proportion of all clients are actually meeting those financial obligations. It's true that many may say, qualitatively, that they've had to go without essentials in order to make those payments. That's quite right: someone who's on a small income is almost certainly going to do it, by definition. But they went into it with their eyes wide open. They went into it knowing what the repayments were. They were forensically, one would hope, interviewed to establish exactly how they would meet those payments. Ultimately, that is the job of the entity providing the credit. The fact that most of their income is from merchant fees and not late fees is also very encouraging.
At every level there will never be a terribly clean sector, but I think as a nation we need to be mindful that every Australian deserves a right to access some form of credit that is consistent with their financial position. These groups do it in a very difficult way. I think the final point to make here is that, as long as late fees are not a substantial contribution to it, the sector should continue doing their work, with adequate prudence as they go.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (17:34): I thank the member for Mayo for raising this important issue. I very gladly second her motion. The buy-now pay-later scheme is an alternative to credit that allows consumers to purchase products and then divide the payments into allotments, usually into weekly payments. The majority of providers do not charge interest, but most charge late fees if a payment is missed.
Most people have heard about Afterpay and ZipPay companies. They have enjoyed a meteoric rise on the Australian Securities Exchange. Other companies are following suit and new entrants are emerging regularly. Enabled by the rise of innovation and fintech solutions, the buy now pay later industry is expanding its reach rapidly. This year, industry revenue amounted to almost $700 million, and analysts are projecting it may grow to $1.1 billion in 2025. We know that the COVID-19 pandemic has made this even worse, pouring accelerant on the growth of the industry as consumers forgo credit cards and use online retailers more. Recent reports suggest that five per cent of all online retail sales and 20 per cent of online fashion sales are now processed through Afterpay, which is Australia's most popular buy now pay later scheme. What is worrying is that this industry is impacting our youth. This industry is targeted to youth who have a tendency to steer clear of credit cards. We know that 60 per cent of users are between 18 and 34 years old and that there are more female than male users.
Buy now pay later providers are not subject to the controls that financial institutions are subjected to under the National Credit Act and therefore there are no responsible lending provisions. Buy now pay later providers are not subject to this. That means that they do not do affordability checks before handing out credits, and we are not seeing the safeguards that are necessary. The consequences are dire. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission found that one in five buy now pay later users are missing payments; that those aged between 18 and 29—which is half of those users—cut back on essential items to make repayments; and more than 1.1 million transactions in 2019 incurred multiple missed payment fees. Even more worrisome, the report found that 15 per cent of users, and under half of those under 29, have taken out additional loans to pay for the services. It is clear that this industry should be called 'buy now pain later', in particular for the youth. I'm concerned that users of this industry are not appropriately protected or catered for.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (17:37): I'm really pleased to enter the debate today and commend the members for Mayo and Warringah for bringing this item to the attention of the House. Sadly, this is not the first time that we've had this debate in this parliament. I really wish it was. The government has been delivered a litany of evidence, with case studies and evidence provided not only in the ASIC report into buy now pay later, which came down two months ago, but also in their own report into the small amount credit contacting legislation, which was promised to be delivered into this House to provide meaningful reform so that vulnerable Australians would not be ripped off.
I have sat down and talked with financial counsellors, organisations such as St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army, credit organisations and church groups in my community and across Australia. They have all said the same thing: this government has the power to crack down on practices which have seen vulnerable Australians ripped off. I will bring some facts to the attention of the chamber. Between April 2016 and July 2019—pre-pandemic—just over 4.7 million individual payday loans have been written, with an approximate total of $3.09 billion. That's 1.77 million households that have turned to payday loans. It's all very well for the member for Bowman to say that people have choice. They don't have choice. They don't have access to financial support.
Just when this government is ripping the rug out from under so many Australian families, we now see with ASIC's long-awaited report into buy now pay later schemes that the total amount of credit extended in the buy now pay later industry has doubled in 12 months. These transactions have increased from $16.8 million in the 2017-18 financial year to $32 million in 2018-19, representing an increase of 90 per cent. Missed payment fee revenue for all buy now pay later providers that ASIC looked at grew by 38 per cent to $43 million.
Revenue sources vary between different platforms. Late fees made up 20 per cent of Afterpay's revenue in 2018-19, with the balance from merchant fees, whereas Zip got most of its revenue from other fees charged to customers. This is good money for these companies. They are making money off the back of Australians who are turning to these schemes without adequate information or adequate protection. Among her clients, consumer advocate Rosie Fisk has observed, 'When consumers have got more than one of these products and they're trying to get on top of paying every fortnight and then the late fees as well, they really get into that financial vulnerability and go without their essential living expenses in favour of trying to pay their Afterpay or their other buy-now pay-later provider.'
The buy-now pay-later providers ASIC reviewed include Afterpay, Brighte, Humm, Openpay, Payright and Zip. Wherever you turn, there are these new kids on the block trying to rip off Australians. Users under the age of 35 accounted for 61 per cent of completed transactions in the 2018-19 financial year. But, for transactions that incurred missed payment fees, under-35s accounted for 67 per cent, and some 45 per cent of transactions that incurred a late fee were hit with more than one. These schemes are making money off the back of people who are missing payments. They are making huge sums of money. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going to the owners of these companies.
It's all very well for the member for Wentworth to say he's a shareholder. No wonder he's getting up here and defending this scheme. He's making a motza! I think it is astounding that any member of parliament, whether it be the member for Wentworth or the member for Bowman, would get into this place and somehow defend these loan sharks and defend what is happening. We know that the government is sitting on real reform. I introduced the private member's bill that Kelly O'Dwyer delivered to the House before the extreme right of the Liberal Party, the friends of payday lenders, withdrew it. But we're telling the government one thing today: we will continue to fight for these reforms for vulnerable Australians until they are passed.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (17:42): I'd like to thank the member for Mayo for moving this motion. Her leadership on consumer protection and against predatory lending should serve as the standard in this place. We all know that feeling of wanting to buy something you can't afford and the heartsick longing as you rapidly calculate what you could sacrifice to get it and then, if reason wins over passion, walking away or closing the tab. It's this feeling that buy-now pay-later products circumvent. By paying for items over intervals, buy-now pay-later is seen to make purchases more affordable and manageable, with no upfront costs, interest or complicated paperwork. Its popularity has exploded in recent years, with companies such as Afterpay and Zip reporting astronomical growth. That was before the pandemic shuttered bricks and mortar retail and online shopping became a national pastime, including in regional Australia, where it has grown by 46 per cent year on year.
Buy-now pay-later may seem like a low-risk option for purchases under a couple of thousand dollars, but ASIC's report on the sector last month illustrates the full cost of this easy access to credit. ASIC reported that one in five buy-now pay-later users had missed a payment in the last 12 months, incurring late payment fees of up to 25 per cent of the purchase price. It's not just the immediate hip-pocket pain; late repayments can affect credit scores, jeopardising subsequent loan applications for cars or mortgages. More shocking is the fact that one in five buy-now pay-later users are cutting back on or going without essentials to meet their repayment obligations. It is simply devastating to think that people are skipping meals, not buying grocery or missing their mortgage repayments to pay off a buy-now pay-later loan.
Unlike other forms of credit, there are no responsible lending obligations on buy-now pay-later providers. They don't have to do due diligence on a consumer's financial situation or assess if the arrangement is suitable. For a credit offering with such monumental consequences this is unacceptable. The industry is developing a self-regulating code under the oversight of ASIC. The same responsible lending standards should be applied to all consumers, no matter where they get their credit.
Responsible lending laws are also under threat. The government has flagged its intention to wind back or completely remove these protections. I've received dozens of emails from constituents alarmed at this prospect and from professionals who've seen lives destroyed by unaffordable loans. Sandra Blake, a financial counsellor with 10 years local experience, currently assists small businesses with bushfire recovery financials, and she says the current laws deter lenders from offering unaffordable loans. She is concerned: 'that government is planning to remove these protections in the middle of a recession when it is more likely than ever that people will be more vulnerable to being taken advantage of by lenders'. Karen O'Brien is a rural social worker and adult educator who works each day with vulnerable people. She says: 'Any relaxing of protections will seriously harm the most at-risk members of our local community and increase bankruptcy, homelessness and stress around their finances'. And, in a joint letter, the Hume Riverina Community Legal Service and Upper Murray Family Care say: 'These laws currently prevent lenders from selling unaffordable loans and saddling people with debt they will never be able to pay off. The last thing we need is for banks and lenders to sell people bad debts'.
As the Independent federal member for Indi, I put the interests of my constituents first, not those of big banks or credit providers. That's why I cannot support these changes in their current form. They contradict the first recommendations of the banking royal commission. They will be introduced at the same time that JobKeeper ceases and JobSeeker will be cut. Over 7,300 of my constituents receive JobSeeker, and 6,016 Indi businesses have applied for JobKeeper. This will be a time of great financial uncertainty for these jobseekers and employees who rely on these payments. There are other ways we can support consumers to invest in the economy, such as keeping JobSeeker at the current rate. I'm yet to see a compelling reason for the reform. If access to credit is holding our recovery back, there are other policy levers we can pull that don't put the onus back on vulnerable consumers and risk hurting families. I will not support any legislation that would leave vulnerable people in my community saddled with bad debt. I urge the government to reconsider its reforms and commit to a fair and responsible credit environment for everyone.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Home Ownership and Superannuation
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (17:47): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the benefits of home ownership are enjoyed during the working life of Australians, and in retirement;
(b) home ownership is more critical for a secure retirement than a large superannuation balance, as income can be supplemented by the pension;
(c) there is a disturbing rise of Australians who are entering retirement in poverty because of a lack of home ownership, particularly amongst separated and divorced women;
(d) currently Australians are forced to save for superannuation first and a home second;
(e) young Australians are struggling to save enough for a home deposit because their savings are locked away in superannuation;
(f) Australians only benefit from superannuation for about 20 years; and
(g) Australians draw the benefits of home ownership for around 50 years—both while working and in retirement; and
(2) recognises and acknowledges that:
(a) the order should be reversed: home first, super second;
(b) if young Australians could use their superannuation with other savings for a home deposit, they could buy a home both earlier and more cheaply; and
(c) by owning a home, young Australians will have a better life and a better retirement.
Currently, Australians are being forced to put superannuation before homeownership. It should be home first, super second. The recent Retirement Income Review highlighted how critical homeownership is for retirement. It mentioned the importance of homeownership 300 times. Research from the Grattan Institute shows a typical homeowner aged over 65 spends just five per cent of their income on housing compared with nearly 30 per cent—and rising—for renters. Until the 1990s, it was conventional practice that Australians saved for a home deposit first, because it was the ultimate form of financial security for them and their families throughout people's working lives and into their retirement. Saving for retirement income then followed. Many corporates didn't even compel young workers to contribute to their superannuation until about the age of 30, knowing they needed to save for a home. They understood the decision had to be made to fit into the slipstream of people's lives. You get the benefits of homeownership for around 50 years: when you're working and in retirement. Super is only for retirement.
Compulsory superannuation reversed these priorities. It introduced a form of social engineering. Former Prime Minister Paul Keating articulated it best in his 2007 speech on the history of modern superannuation. Keating said:
… had employers not paid nine percentage points of wages as superannuation contributions to employee superannuation accounts, they would have paid it in cash as wages.
And, of course, they could have used it for a home deposit. Australians' wages were taken from them for super first, and any savings for a home came second. The legacy has been a significant accumulation of wealth in superannuation and a decline in homeownership in our great country.
In 1992, the Australian superannuation system held $221 billion. Today, it is $3.1 trillion. It has increased almost 14 times. Concurrently, the biggest decline has been in the home ownership rate of those who have always been under compulsory super. Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows home ownership for Australians aged between 25 and 34 has gone from 52.2 per cent in 1995-96 to 36.8 per cent by 2017-18. The challenge has become so serious that the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute has projected that only half of Australians between 25 and 55 will own their own home by 2040.
The biggest barrier for young Australians to buying their own home is saving a deposit. And, with the price of homes increasing by $23,000 a year on average since 2000, enabling them to buy a home earlier also means buying a home more cheaply. The longer it takes to buy a home, the more expensive it becomes. Since 2000, the price of a home has increased, as I said, by $23,000 a year. Demand influences house prices, but so does delay.
Sadly, these points seem to be lost on the Labor Party and the self-interested superannuation sector, who will say anything to get more of your money. They only want more access to rivers of gold. The response from the super industry and their ecosystem of representative bodies has been fierce. But they're absolute hypocrites. Super funds invest in build-to-rent housing. That means super funds are taking your superannuation to build housing that they own, that you can rent from them. In June, AustralianSuper took a 25 per cent stake in a build-to-rent company. Other super funds are now following suit. In August of this year, First State Super said they wanted to expand their investments in this build-to-rent sector and see the barriers removed to make way for the market to grow. The industry doesn't mind the superannuation savings of Australians being used for housing—so long as they own it, not you. They're the modern equivalent of wannabe feudal lords.
Ultimately, this debate is absolutely about power. Home ownership is about empowering Australians and families, and we can empower individuals and families through that process or we can empower fund managers. I know whose side I am on, and I know whose side the coalition government is on. And soon we will see whose side the Labor Party is on: individual Australians and families, or super fund managers.
Currently, the law says: Super first, home second. It should be the other way around: home first, super second. If young Australians could own their own home, they'd have a better life—but an even better retirement.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): I thank the member for Goldstein. Do we have a seconder for the motion?
Mr Ted O'Brien: I'm very happy to second this compelling motion, and I reserve my right to speak.
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (17:52): I rise to strongly oppose this superficial and dangerous motion. It's a motion by one of a gaggle of government backbenchers who claim to support super, but there's always a big 'but': 'We support super, but'—early release. 'We support super, but'—
Government members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr MULINO: Those opposite, Deputy Speaker, don't like the truth, so they howl. It's actually confirming all of my suspicions about those opposite—that they can't deal with arguments, so they try hollow volume.
Let's think about the strategy and the arguments of those opposite. At every turn, over this term of parliament, where possible, they have tried to weaken the superannuation system. If we have a business downturn, they turn to early release so that people have to self-insure rather than the government doing what it's supposed to and protecting the vulnerable. When they've got a shocking lack of a housing policy, those opposite turn to superannuation and fundamentally seek to undermine our retirement system.
Let's see what's so superficial and dangerous about this mirage of a policy. It's superficially attractive, but the more you look at it, the more you realise there's absolutely nothing to it but the hollow rhetoric we just heard. What we see is somebody trying to set up a completely false dichotomy. The government is saying: 'You can have either housing or a good retirement.' It's a shocking way to frame this for today's young people—a shocking way to frame it.
Those opposite won't tell young people that, if they access their superannuation for retirement early, the opportunity cost is massive. Investment expert after investment expert will tell us that time is your greatest ally when investing, and that is exactly why it is critical that people invest early in their careers and sit on those investments. It is absolutely critical that young people today invest for their retirement with the advice of Warren Buffett, not the self-promoting backbenchers opposite. There are the massive opportunity costs that our young people would be exposed to if they withdrew money for housing, when they should have alternative supply-side policies. They should have both, but, if they withdraw thousands from their early retirement savings, they will be giving up six, eight or 10 times that in their retirement.
The other thing we should bear in mind is that those opposite claim that they are helping the young people who are struggling to buy housing, but the people in the 25-to-34 age bracket will have average savings of $8,000 to 28,000. As we saw in the latest economic downturn, those opposite want people to clear out their super accounts so that, by the time they get to 35, they will have zero. Those opposite will yell and howl and they will publish their little pamphlets with half-arguments, but what they don't like to acknowledge is that what they're really asking of our young people is to pull out their super, drive up housing and have nothing in their accounts at 35. That is exactly what they are saying. Those opposite, who claim to be economic managers, give us yet another lazy demand-side solution to the housing problems.
Sally Loane, CEO of FSC, said early release for housing would be 'counterproductive and further inflate house prices'. Michael Sukkar, the current Minister for Housing, said in 2014 that he agrees that tapping super for property would only drive up house prices because it would pump more liquidity into the market. I'd love to hear what those opposite would say when the current Minister for Housing says, 'I want more supply-side measures,' which is exactly what all serious commentators on the housing market say. Those opposite adopt the lazy strategy of saying to our young people today that it's either housing or their retirement, which is a completely false choice. Finally, it is absolutely critical that we acknowledge that the Retirement income review, just released, did not recommend early release from superannuation in order to buy housing. There is nothing that they can point to in that report. Those opposite want to fundamentally undermine the superannuation system—a world-leading system that the World Bank and OECD point to, saying other counties should follow. It's a completely lazy, superficial choice they're offering our young people.
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (17:58): There are those who say that the Australian dream is dead and that rent-seeking parasites killed it, slowly and then permanently. We say that the Australian dream of owning your own home is not dead. We say it shall never die while there is just one of us who is willing to stand up for it, because young Australians deserve to own their own home. How is it that a nation inhabiting the least populated economy in the world and with some of the highest wages in the world cannot house all its people or create an affordable stock of housing? The answer is simple: Australian state and local governments have spent the last 70 years systematically and deliberately ensuring that housing in Australia is some of the most expensive in the world. This has resulted in homelessness, poverty, entrenched disadvantage and wealth inequality. In fact, this is one of the greatest pieces of intergenerational theft in our history. All the while, self-righteous and self-serving interest groups, always taxpayer funded, vehemently argue that the answer to these problems is more of the same: more regulation, more tax and higher super contributions. Their unexamined urgings have led governments to develop policies with insane outcomes.
At a federal level, compulsory superannuation costs Australians over $30 billion a year—three times what they spend on electricity bills—and taxpayers a net $61 billion. The cost to ordinary Australians is decreasing home ownership. Since the introduction of compulsory superannuation two things have happened: Labor's biggest donors have become rich beyond their wildest dreams, and each generation has had lower and lower levels of home ownership, embedding inequality. The Left is aiding and abetting inequality in Australia in the 21st century.
At a state level, planning laws and taxes have done their intended damage. In the 1990s, first home buyers spent a year saving for stamp duty. Today it takes 2½ years. The ACT government, the self-proclaimed most progressive government in Australia, was going to remove stamp duty in favour of land tax. Now the citizens of the ACT get to pay both! According to St Vincent de Paul, there is a backlog of 500,000 affordable houses. I think they're being conservative.
As for local government, ask the next person you walk past in the street what they think of their local council. They will happily tell you that it is bloated, costly and inefficient and that it spends money on saving the world while neglecting parking, parks, rubbish and footpaths. There is often a stench of corruption, whether it be brown paper bags or just simple incompetence. Mayors drive $270,000 Teslas while their ratepayers see charges increase by 297 per cent. No-one critically examines what goes on because the local media's biggest advertiser is the council.
In a little-noted analysis—but much criticised by self-serving interest groups who already own their own properties—the Reserve Bank of Australia worked out that the average apartment price in Sydney is now $873,000 but that over $355,000 of that is due to state government zoning rules and local government charges. When it comes to greedy property developers, no-one beats out local and state governments. Given all this, is it any wonder that we have some of the most expensive land in the world? This problem is not the result of too few planning laws and approval processes; it is the result of too many planning laws, credit restrictions, government charges and prolonged approval processes.
In the mid-90s, the Japanese government started the world's largest public housing program to stimulate their economy. It did not work and it did not materially reduce homelessness. Five years later, as reported in The Economist, the Tokyo government undertook planning reform. From 2002 to 2012, homelessness in Tokyo was reduced by 80 per cent. The lessons are clear. Our clear preference should be for governments to increase home ownership, not to force people to rely on governments for shelter.
Ms STANLEY (Werriwa—Opposition Whip) (18:02): I rise to speak in opposition to the motion moved by the member for Goldstein. I'm deeply disappointed but not at all surprised by the premise of the motion. As Paul Keating said recently, 'You can't eat your home, nor when you get to retirement should you have to sell it to live.' Superannuation was an agreement of the accord process between workers, employers and the government during the early years of the Hawke and Keating governments. Workers understood then that putting their wage rise into super would help them have a better retirement and not be beholden to governments for pensions or support. Ultimately, governments knew at the time that it would assist the budget if most people had sources of income in retirement and didn't have to rely on pensions.
Compulsory superannuation is one of the nation's greatest reforms. Like the NDIS, Medicare and successive higher education reforms, super is a compact between the government and Australians. Despite your circumstances, despite your disadvantage, the government will provide the backing and support for you to fulfil your potential and achieve a decent standard of living. In return the nation is better able to harness its best and brightest. It's a new social contract. Like the majority of this nation's great reforms, it of course came from a Labor government, and, as with most great Labor reforms, it's the Liberals who are hell-bent on tearing it down—probably because they didn't think of it first.
This motion isn't fooling anyone. Compulsory superannuation, particularly through industry funds, benefits workers, so the Liberals attack it. It's part of a decades-long ideological war by the party against compulsory super. They opposed it when it was introduced. John Howard said one thing before the 1996 election and another after it, freezing increases to super. Tony Abbott froze it again when he came to power, and once again this government is floating a freeze to super while backbenchers seek to attack it and undermine it in other ways.
There have been numerous attempts by this government to undermine and destroy compulsory superannuation and industry funds, but what have the numerous commissions, inquiries and reports into superannuation found?
The Australian retirement income system is effective, sound and its costs are broadly sustainable.
That's from the recently released Retirement income review: final report. What did the Productivity Commission report in 2018 say about industry funds and retail funds? On performance:
Not-for-profit funds, as a group, have systematically outperformed retail funds.
On governance:
… some retail fund directors, although considered 'independent', are on a number of related-party boards, which raises questions about their independence and fuels perceptions of (and sometimes actual) conflicts of interest.
And then there's the scathing Hayne royal commission. It's recommended strengthening regulation and banning what it called 'the hawking of superannuation'.
What each of those inquiries and reports understands is a simple concept on how best to regulate, govern and manage superannuation. That is to act in the best interests of the fund and in the best interests of the members. The member's motion seeks to equate homeownership and superannuation as a mutually exclusive trade-off. The reason young people can't afford a home or find it difficult to qualify for a home is far more complex than having to put money into super. We need to look at the continued casualisation of the workforce, with labour hire companies that pay the lowest possible wage with no guarantee of any leave or a job at the end of the contract. We have, unfortunately, seen the consequences of that in this pandemic, when the choice to go to work when sick has dire outcomes.
Furthermore, in Sydney, you require an average of $80,000 for a house deposit. A 26-year-old is likely to have less than a third of that in super. The best way to get Australians into the housing market and to provide safe, secure housing is not to smash their retirement savings. It's by constructing more and repairing existing social housing, expanding the First Home Loan Deposit Scheme and offering grants to first home buyers who will build their first home. As Paul Keating, the architect of compulsory superannuation, said in 2007, 'When you hear conservatives these days speak of superannuation as a tax on employers they are either ill-informed or they are lying.' It seems not much has changed in 13 years. (Time expired)
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (18:07): I rise in support of the motion moved by my friend the member for Goldstein. Like with most Australian communities, homeownership represents a key milestone in the lives of many of my constituents, and ideally it's the start of their journey towards financial freedom, economic security and an enduring sense of comfort in retirement. I am not anti superannuation, but I am pro homeownership. As the Retirement income review found, housing status is a strong determinant of retirement incomes. People who own their home outright have generally lower housing costs compared with renters as well as a store of wealth that can be drawn on in retirement. People who rent may require incomes similar to working life to maintain living standards in retirement.
The incomes review also found that the home is the most important component of voluntary savings and is an important factor influencing how people feel about retirement. Homeowners, as you would expect, have lower housing costs and an asset that can be drawn on in retirement. The review also found that, if a decline in homeownership among younger people is sustained into retirement, there will be an increasing number of retirees who rent. The system, as we know, currently favours homeowners such as through the exemption of the principal residence from the age pension assets test.
Using superannuation's assets more efficiently and accessing equity in the home can boost retirement incomes without the need for additional contributions. That was one of the main findings of the Retirement income review. Whilst the Retirement income review flagged a range of measures, including the Pensions Loans Scheme, I think there are others that are worth exploring, as my colleague the member for Goldstein has highlighted.
Over the past 40 years, increases in home values and delayed workforce entry have contributed to falling homeownership rates. These factors have particularly effected lower-income and younger households. Overall homeownership rates have declined from around 70 per cent in 1981 to 67 per cent in 2016. Whilst, among people aged 55 and over, rates of homeownership have been consistently high, homeownership has fallen among younger age groups. The median age of people buying their first home increased from 24 in 1981 to 33 in 2016. The independent Grattan Institute has identified that those aged 65 and over spend nearly 30 per cent of their income on housing, compared to homeowning retirees, who spend merely five per cent. Such a significant disparity in cost represents an equally significant disparity in terms of quality of life in retirement.
This government believes in homeownership. We believe that individuals should be empowered with the freedom and the choices to make the best decisions in the interests of themselves and their families. We also believe that everyone should be able to look forward to a safe, happy and secure retirement. This means creating a superannuation system that supports these goals and serves as a contributor, rather than a detractor, to these goals and aspirations. A superannuation system that holds back the property ownership ambitions of all Australians is a superannuation system that is in need of reform. Prior to the introduction of compulsory superannuation, most Australians worked to save and invest in property. It was the financial priority of most households, with neighbourhoods built on the back of this shared local interest. Fast forward three decades, though, and we've seen property ownership rates fall, from 52 per cent in 1995-96 to 36 per cent just a few years ago, for those aged between 25 and 34. Meanwhile, the superannuation system's assets under management have grown from $221 billion to $3.1 trillion over this same period.
With initiatives like the federal government's First Home Super Saver Scheme and First Home Loan Deposit Scheme, interest rates at an all-time low and responsible lending reforms on the horizon, it is a good time to buy a home. But the biggest barrier faced by young Australians who want to buy their first home is saving for a deposit. As Association Superannuation Funds of Australia data shows, Australians between 30 to 34 have an average of $38,000 in superannuation which they could use for a deposit if only they could access it. As I said, I'm not anti super, but I am pro-homeownership. As the early access scheme for superannuation showed, there are many Australians who have come to realise that the money in superannuation is their own money. Australians should have the freedom to choose how they best save for their retirement.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (18:12): I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Goldstein. He just can't help himself! He and his coalition colleagues hate industry superannuation and, by extension, the superannuation guarantee charge, the SGC. The fact that the SGC is slated to increase gradually, from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent starting next July, is sending him and his colleagues apoplectic. The fact that unions founded industry super and that employers, along with the unions, run the sector sends his rage into overdrive—not to mention that the average returns of industry super far outweigh those of his mates in the retail sector and probably those of Wilson Asset Management. He can't stand it!
But now the COVID pandemic has given the member for Goldstein and this government an excuse to rob workers of their SGC increases, rob them of retirement wealth and undermine industry super all at the same time. But he isn't the first to do this, I'm sorry to tell him. He's simply the last in a long line of Liberal super haters, from John Howard to Tony Abbott. Every time the coalition can, they find an excuse to defer legislated increases to super.
In this motion, the member argues that owning a house is more important than super. I for one think that having a roof over your head is important. It's crucial, especially for older, single women. Having secure housing in retirement is as fundamental to a decent standard of living as universal health care or a decent social security system. But the member for Goldstein sets up a false argument, as though owning a home and a decent retirement income are mutually exclusive. To own a home, you shouldn't have to rob your retirement to pay for it. As many commentators have pointed out, allowing workers to access super for first home ownership will simply drive up house prices. Saul Eslake, a leading independent economist, told Greg Jericho in The Guardian recently that any policy that puts more cash in the hands of Australians to buy houses means they would ultimately end up paying more for housing. So not only would homes be more expensive; those same workers who dip into their super will have hundreds of thousands less in retirement savings.
You can't separate this out from the fact that Liberals have an appalling record on housing affordability and social housing. There was the measly budget announcement of $1 billion to assist the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to guarantee social housing projects built by community providers, allowing a small reduction in their repayments. There was no direct investment, not a single new dwelling and not a single cent for actual houses.
Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—
Ms KEARNEY: Thank you, member for Goldstein. Compare that to Victoria's budget announcement of 12,000 housing units at a cost of $5.3 billion. Even the Liberal Party in New South Wales committed an extra $812 million to social housing. The Morrison government should be ashamed of itself. Then there is the ludicrous argument that an increase of one per cent in SGC will see a one per cent less increase in wages. The argument is that, without the SGC rise, workers will have more money to pay off their house. I know that workers out there will be laughing their head off at this argument. Very few workers have ever come across an employer who says, 'Wow! That change to the legislation means I don't have to find an extra one per cent for super this year. I'll give you a one per cent wage rise instead.' In your gut, you know that this is laughable.
I am glad the McKell Institute has rejected this argument as well, based on economic analysis, not just a gut feeling. The McKell Institute concludes:
... we find no evidence to suggest that a one percentage point increase in the Superannuation Guarantee minimum contribution rate will lead to a ... reduction in wage growth.
In fact, they say:
... our analysis suggests that increasing the Superannuation Guarantee ... will give workers a share of productivity they have not been getting in the market—with minimal loss, if any, to their cash wages—
as if wages were skyrocketing anyway. Under this government, real wages have gone backwards and private sector wage increases struggled to make two per cent a year before the pandemic. Insecure and gig work has exploded, and the government has nothing to help 40 per cent of workers in precarious work. They can't qualify for a home loan, no matter how much extra they get in their wages, because they're in precarious work. Let's be clear: a deferral of SG increases, which is what this motion sets out, is a grubby attack by the member for Goldstein on industry super.
Debate adjourned.
Philippines
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (18:17): I move:
That this House:
(1) affirms the longstanding, important, and respectful relationship between Australia and the Philippines, and supports the ongoing cooperation between our countries in key areas like regional development, maritime security, and disaster risk and reduction management;
(2) expresses its opposition to the recently intensified repression directed at human rights and labour rights defenders in the Philippines, evident by the:
(a) International Trade Union Confederation listing the Philippines in the top ten worst countries for workers' rights as a result of the extrajudicial killings of forty-six union members and officials in the last three years;
(b) deteriorating human rights environment and the rise in unlawful killings by state agencies which means that workers, civil servants, trade union organisations, and labour activists fear for their safety;
(c) nearly three-year extension of martial law in Mindanao, after it was initially approved for sixty days, and which only ended in December 2019; and
(d) UN Human Rights Council's adoption of resolution 41/2 expressing concern over human rights violations and requesting the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a comprehensive report on the human rights situation in the Philippines that was due in June 2020;
(3) supports recommendations put forward by the International Labour Organization's (ILO) Conference Committee on the Application of Standards to:
(a) oppose any language that creates a negative stigmatisation of those defending the rights of workers and human rights; and
(b) oppose any military intervention in industrial disputes, as such interventions in trade union affairs can only occur with approval of the Government, which constitutes a grave violation of human rights and the principles of freedom of association; and
(4) calls on the Government to support the upholding of labour and human rights, in line with international standards, by endorsing:
(a) the ILO's resolution to send a high-level tripartite mission to the Philippines to conduct an open, transparent, and robust investigation of the human rights situation; and
(b) any auditing process of Australian security engagements in the Philippines, such as the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Program, as a way of ensuring we are not indirectly supporting human rights violations in the Philippines.
Australia has a strong connection with the people of the Philippines. We have been and we will continue to be supportive of their peaceful and prosperous development. This motion was prompted by a meeting I had with a delegation of labour organisations, including the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the ACTU, Union Aid Abroad and the Filipino workers representative group, Kilusang Mayo Uno. I thank them for raising this serious issue and I particularly acknowledge the unstinting work of AFIDA, with solidarity of workers around the world, but, most importantly, in countries where workplace rights and access to union representation is limited. We 're fortunate to live in a country that has a diverse and healthy union movement and in which, generally speaking, there is respect and protection for the role of unions, despite the best efforts of the coalition. Sadly. there are many parts of the world where that is not the case. In partnership with the Metal Workers Alliance, AFIDA and the AMWU, the Australian union movement is providing invaluable education and support to Filipino union activists in response to the ongoing intimidation by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
The reality for many workers in the Philippines is pretty tough. A skilled metal worker earns $12 a day in Manila, which is less than half of the daily cost of living for a family. There is no minimum wage and less than 10 per cent of workers are unionised. It's commonly the case that union representatives are labelled 'factory terrorists' by corporations that operate in the Philippines, some of which are multinational companies with brands that are well-known here in Australia. The International Trade Union Confederation consistently ranks the Philippines among the 10 worst countries in the world for workers' rights. There is credible evidence that 46 union members and officials have been murdered in the past three years with at least the complicity of the Duterte government.
There has also been an increase in violence directed at journalists in a bid to silence criticism and instil fear. Indeed, anyone who criticises the government can be targeted, as evidenced by the arrest of journalist Maria Ressa and the forced shutdown of ABS-CBN, which resulted in 11,000 media workers losing their jobs. Unfortunately the situation has worsened through the pandemic, with the government moving to suppress union activities in areas of essential service work and, health care, thereby hampering efforts to ensure safe workplaces and access to PPE.
What's more, in July the government passed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which criminalises conduct that is regarded by the United Nations as being legitimate forms of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. Under that law the compilation of a list of alleged terrorists by the newly created Anti-Terrorism Council has resulted in surveillance, arrests and detentions with a focus on the red tagging of unionists, journalists and other members of civil society. The office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has expressed concerns that these laws violate the UN declaration on human rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Just last week the ACTU held a rally at the Filipino embassy, and President Michele O'Neil rightly called on the Australian government to take a more active stance. In October the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds, visited the Philippines for the purposes of deepening defence ties. We don't know if she raised concerns about human rights during these talks, but we do know that the minister's public statements contained no mention of the issue.
The Morrison government should be calling on the Duterte administration to stop the practice of red tagging against trade unions and civil society organisations, accept the ILO high-level tripartite mission to the Philippines, repeal any measures within the Anti-Terrorism Act that are inconsistent with human rights, and ensure the health, safe and security of all Filipino workers.
Workers' rights are human rights. There has been no greater organisational force for good and for human progress than the labour movement. All the best things we have achieved—democracy, equality, egalitarianism, antidiscrimination, peace and freedom—all these things have been fought for, campaigned for and bit by bit achieved or improved or protected with the efforts and principled commitment of organised labour, by unionists and their representatives in the union movement.
This year has opened our eyes to the importance of essential workers, fair and safe working conditions, secure work and proper leave arrangements, not just for workers and their families but for maintenance of basic services and public health. Yet workers' pay has fallen to the lowest share of national income in 50 years and wages have flatlined in a worrying disconnection from profits and productivity. If there's one thing we should carry into 2021, whether it's in the Philippines or in Australia, it's that we need a strong labour movement as the great guarantor of fairness and social— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr Conroy: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (18:23): Next year marks the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our country and the Philippines. But in fact we have a connection to the Philippines going back well before then, particularly during the Second World War, when General Macarthur left Mindanao Island for Darwin and flew down to Alice Springs—there was no railway in those days. From Alice Springs he took the train. It was at a small town in the mid-north of SA, Terowie, that two Advertiser journalists were able to rendezvous with him, where he made the famous comment to those journalists, which ended up in a headline in the AdelaideAdvertiser: 'I shall return.' That turned into a famous catchcry of the general. Of course did return in 1944 and went on up to Japan. As an allied commander my grandfather served under him—quite a way under him, I might add. He made an enormous impact and was very significant in the liberation of the Philippines.
Our relationship with the Philippines emanates not just from the diplomatic relationship from 1945, but before. They are a very important ally to us to this day, of course, being a member of ASEAN, a very important trading partner.
I had the pleasure of travelling there on an Australian Political Exchange Council visit in 2011. It is a beautiful country with great opportunity. There have been many challenges in their past, there are currently challenges and there will be into their future, but they are a very important partner for us. We are seeing more and more as new challenges arise in our region that we want strong relationships with all those nations, particularly the South-East Asian nations. So our relationship with the Philippines is very important.
I commend the member for moving this motion, because some of the things that are alleged to be happening in the Philippines are very concerning. He gave a catalogue of issues to do with workers' rights and general freedoms in the Philippines, particularly the freedom of the press, which are universal values that we all share across all sides of the chamber. He also mentioned the ILO, and I would like to take the opportunity to say that there's never been a more important time to embrace international organisations, the international rules based system and international law. In this country at the moment we are finding, with some of the trade challenges that we have with partners like China, that it is so important that there are structures that we can engage in to have fair rules based dispute resolution mechanisms and a fair playing field for everyone concerned.
Without digressing from the Philippines topic, there have been governments—not just the Philippines but others—in recent times that have been rather negative and critical, even mocking, of some of these international institutions. That has been regrettable but, hopefully, there is a sense of renewed optimism at the value of and need for these institution so that, when we have disputes and concerns amongst other nations—particularly those nations in our region—whether they are trading partners, trading competitors, security partners and so on, we have the right mechanisms to resolves those while preserving a peaceful framework.
I am very concerned about a number of the reports that we read in Western media about the Duterte regime and some of the ways in which they are governing their country, and particularly the way in which they are undertaking judicial processes or perhaps, as is reported and alleged, the lack of due process in judicial processes not just in the areas that the member has raised but also in the so-called crackdown on the drug trade and some of the claims about extrajudicial action against people indiscriminately—or, in fact, discriminately, I might correct myself in saying—where allegations are that, for reasons nothing to do with reported drug activity et cetera, critics and opponents of the regime are being targeted. We as a nation support democracies. We support human rights and people's freedoms. That includes those that the member has outlined in moving the motion but also other universal human rights that we always as a nation should stand united in proclaiming and defending. We have to be prepared to call out our concerns and take all action that is available to us when these reports come to us, no matter where these nations are, who they are, how powerful they are or how important our relationship is with them. I am very proud of the long history of our relationship with the Philippines. We are adult enough to be honest with friends, as we are in this case and should continue to do into the future. (Time expired)
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (18:22): I rise to proudly speak on and second the motion moved by the member for Fremantle about human rights in the Philippines. Australia and the Philippines have a warm and mutually respectful relationship. It is a relationship with many dimensions—economic and industry dimensions through to trade and investment and the close links between industry sectors like education and tourism; and political and diplomatic dimensions. There is close bilateral engagement between our two governments and we work together cooperatively in regional and multilateral forums. There is also a strong development relationship. Australia will provide $80 million in development assistance to the Philippines in 2020-21 and support programs to improve the health, education and economic welfare of the people of the Philippines. Of course, there are also the extensive people to people links between Australia and the Philippines. The richness of Australia's multicultural society has been enhanced by the presence of a large, vibrant and hardworking Filipino community in this country. This motion reaffirms the importance of this relationship and the need for continuing close cooperation between Australia and the Philippines. But the motion also expresses concerns about the human rights in the Philippines, particularly the treatment of workers and trade unionists.
I acknowledge the efforts of the government of the Philippines to promote economic development and reduce poverty. In recent years these efforts have included the passage of legislation for universal health care, the adoption of a Magna Carta for the poor and new policies to provide emergency relief and protection for children. But despite these gains in fighting poverty in the Philippines there have been several deeply concerning issues around human rights. In recent years we've seen extrajudicial killings associated with the war on drugs, attacks on civil society and human rights defenders and moves to reintroduce the death penalty. We've also seen a deteriorating situation when it comes to human rights for workers and the labour movement in the Philippines.
The right of workers to organise, to bargain collectively, to come together in trade unions and to be represented by their trade unions are fundamental legal, economic, social and human rights. That's why it's so distressing that the Philippines was listed as one of the world's 10 worst countries for workers by the International Trade Union Confederation earlier this year. The ITUC's 2020 global rights index report found union members in the Philippines were at risk of violence, intimidation, arbitrary arrest and even murder. The report highlighted two cases from last year. On 2 June 2019 Dennis Sequena, a union organiser, was shot while meeting a group of workers in Bunga in the province of Cavite. Dennis was shot by a gunman riding on a motorcycle. He tragically died in hospital later. On 4 November 2019 another union organiser, Reynaldo Malaborbor, was shot several times in the head while walking with his wife near their home at Banay-Banay in the province of Laguna. These are two profoundly disturbing cases. Even more shocking is the fact that these are just two of a total of 46 killings of union members and officials in the Philippines since 2016.
It is clear that the rights of Filipino workers have been under attack in the most extreme way. These issues were raised at the International Labour Organization's annual conference in Geneva last year. In June 2019 the ILO's Committee on the Application of Standards received information about harassment, intimidation and violence against union officials and activists, assassinations of union leaders and so-called tagging of union and labour organisers as 'Reds' by the Philippines military. The employer, union and government representatives from a number of countries expressed concern over these cases. The ILO committee asked the government of the Philippines to carry out immediate investigations into the violence against unionists and to introduce effective measures to prevent violence in the future. The committee also requested that the Philippines accept a high-level tripartite mission from the ILO. The motion we're debating today supports these efforts and calls on the Australian government to support the push for a high-level ILO mission to investigate the labour rights situation in the Philippines.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that the Philippines is a valued and respected partner for Australia. I'm proud of my Filipino Australian community in the Hunter. The FASHVI community is incredibly important to my region. I'm proud of the fact that it's the only Filipino community in the country that owns its own hall. The roots between Australia and the Philippines are deep and abiding and go beyond any one issue, but the violence, intimidation and denial of workers' rights that we've seen in recent years are unacceptable and not in any way consistent with a prosperous future for the people of the Philippines. I commend this motion to the Chamber.
Mr PASIN (Barker) (18:33): I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion to this place, which amongst other things affirms the longstanding, important and respectful relationship between Australia and the Philippines. I want to join my voice to others in this place in reflecting on the importance of that relationship, its complex nature and its interwoven constituent parts. However, just like you need to have honest conversations with friends, there are some elements of that relationship that I will touch on in a minute. But before I do I want to touch on that part of the relationship which has brought me here today to support the motion, and that is very much the people-to-people links.
As a member representing a rural electorate which has three export abattoirs in it, I've got to tell you: Filipino Australians represent a disproportionate share of those workforces. They're fabulous Australians, quite frankly, and they're amazing citizens. We share a passion for life and energy, a work ethic which in my view is second to none and, of course, in many cases Judeo-Christian faith. It's in many of my local churches that I interact, particularly as a Catholic, with members of this community.
But, as I said earlier, just as Australia and the Philippines enjoy a great relationship, it's one of friendship, and we need to be honest with our friends. As the member for Fremantle has said, there are some elements of the relationship, particularly behaviour by the Duterte government, which are giving our government some concern. Before I mention that, I will reflect that ours is a relationship that is officially 75 years long in terms of diplomatic ties in 2021. As I have said, we have concerns regarding the human rights situation in the Philippines, including issues around the ongoing so-called 'war on drugs' and widespread extrajudicial killings with the controversial anti-drugs campaign. I'm particularly concerned about the clampdown on media freedoms, including the revocation of ABS-CBN operating licences and attempts to suppress government critics. As a long-term opponent of the death penalty, attempts by the Duterte administration to reintroduce it give me serious cause for concern.
These concerns, I must say, have been raised on a number of occasions by the Australian government directly with the Philippine government through bilateral diplomatic representations and through advocacy as a voting member on the Human Rights Council. We're a strong supporter of the independent mandate of the United Nations and the High Commissioner for Human Rights. We we're careful to combine our human rights advocacy with our peace and development work to maximise its impact through programs that support human rights and civil society such as strengthening the investigative capabilities of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights, assisting with the case load reduction in the Philippine anti-corruption court and supporting the retention of the office of the UN resident coordinator and senior human rights adviser in the Philippines. Those opposite have spent some time here discussing the ILO. I wish to indicate that the Australian government fully supports the ILO Conference Committee on the Application of Standards.
As I said, this is a relationship of long standing. It's one that is complex in its nature. It operates, as others have indicated, on many levels. But, as I interact with Filipino Australians who have decided to live in the greatest electorate on earth, they share just the concerns I've indicated. They are particularly concerned about developments in the Philippines and the Duterte regime. I am pleased to say that our government has four-square put those concerns on their behalf and on behalf of our nation to the Duterte administration. I hope that our concerns are heeded.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): I thank the member, I didn't realise there were quite that many Philippine expats living in Fisher.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (18:38): This is an important motion. I thank my friend the member for Fremantle for bringing this debate to the House today and the speakers, government and opposition, who have spoken on the motion. I think there's a lot of commonality. We note the deteriorating human rights and labour rights situation in the Philippines under President Duterte. I say at the outset 'under President Duterte' quite deliberately, because we should also recognise that this deterioration is of great concern to all countries that value human rights and labour rights standards, to those that consider themselves friends of the Philippines—and I think Australia is certainly one of those—and to the Australian Filipino diaspora.
I'm proud to represent many Australians of Filipino heritage. Indeed, when I step outside the front door of my electorate office, across the road is the Dandenong Uniting Church. The minister there over the last 12 months or so, Berlin Guerrero, is a Filipino Australian who sought asylum in this country some years ago having previously been abducted, held hostage and tortured under a previous Filipino government for standing up for labour rights and democracy. He's a fantastic chap.
I've also learned that, when you put any speech like this on Facebook, out come the Duterte trolls. So we'll get that bit out upfront. As one of the 10 members of ASEAN and a bilateral partner with whom Australia has a respectful and cooperative relationship on regional development, maritime security, disaster risk reduction and so on, we do value our relationship with the Philippines. But it's in that context of friendship that I echo the sentiments of the motion and say that I'm deeply alarmed by the June report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It was an alarming report. It reported that President Duterte has been using the cover of COVID-19 to introduce even more draconian security laws, with phrases like 'shoot the protesters on sight'. That, of course, comes on the back of President Duterte's campaign against drugs. At least 8,600 people have been illegally killed, and it's probably three times that number.
I note that that report was considered by the United Nations Human Rights Council in October 2020. It's disappointing that Australia failed to show leadership in that exercise. We did not raise our voice loudly and push for stronger investigative mechanisms. It was a weak resolution that was passed and the situation continues to worsen for human rights activists and lawyers. I was sent a list by my local community of 60 lawyers, judges and prosecutors who have been killed in the last four years alone, and that is just those who are known. There were 44 lawyers, seven judges and nine prosecutors and, as the previous speaker rightly said, there is media suppression.
This is all a worrying trend towards authoritarianism and illiberalism in a country that has been democratic and has fought for its democratic rights. I remember the revolution some decades ago in the Philippines in support of democracy. Democracy is fragile and must be protected, so I share the growing concerns, echoed in the motion and by my friend the member for Fremantle, regarding labour rights and workers. The International Trade Union Confederation has ranked the Philippines amongst the 10 worst countries in the world for working people. Fifty union members and officials have been extrajudicially killed, and the antiworker climate is now fuelling fears more broadly across society and is further undermining democracy.
It was good to hear the previous speaker express support for the work of the International Labour Organization, because I hear scepticism at times from government members about the role of trade unions. From visiting developing countries, I know that, in many cases—Cambodia is a case in point; I was there a couple of years ago—trade unions are the only truly democratic organisations in a country. They do such an important role of building civil society and fighting for the values of democracy and for a free civil space where people can express their views, so support for trade union organisations, and active support, by the Australian government in developing countries is especially critical. It's a pity that, under this government, a lot of that support has been cut from our international aid and development as a result of some kind of weird ideological crusade that holds that, when we see the word 'union', that must be bad. Unions have such a critical role to play in supporting democracy.
I go back the last part of the motion, which calls on the government to support the upholding of labour and human rights, in line with international standards, by endorsing the ILO's resolution to send a high-level tripartite mission to the Philippines to conduct an open, transparent and robust investigation of the human rights situation and—I'll repeat this; I've spoken in the parliament about it before; the government has just been silent—any auditing process of Australian security engagements in the Philippines to make sure that, in our engagement with the police, the security and the defence forces, we are not inadvertently supporting any human rights abuses, given, unfortunately, the shameful record of those forces in suppressing human rights in recent times.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
Workplace Relations
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (18:43): I move:
That this House:
(1) condemns:
(a) lawless activity on workplaces in Australia;
(b) the use of vessel bans, overtime bans, acting up bans, shift bans, and stop work meetings by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) that has created chaos on Australian wharves;
(c) the use of industrial action in support of pay increases of over 30 per cent for people earning over $300,000 while damaging the capacity of so many other businesses to pay workers on much lower salaries and create jobs; and
(d) industrial action that threatens supply of critical medical supplies in the middle of a pandemic;
(2) notes that:
(a) many industry sectors including agriculture and road transport have reported supply chain problems which are linked to the MUA's actions;
(b) it is estimated that $165.6 million of imports and $66.9 million of exports per day were disrupted; and
(c) vital medical supplies are being disrupted, at a time when they are needed the most;
(3) further notes that this industrial action is:
(a) not in support of any safety or other related issue but rather pay increases for many people who are earning over $300,000 a year;
(b) supported by many other associated entities of the labour movement such as the Australian Labor Party, industry super owned proxy adviser Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, industry super owned media companies such as The New Daily, class action law firms, and others; and
(c) consistent with previous actions that have hurt our national interests such as during World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War and other times; and
(4) notes the failure of the interest based bargaining that has handed over management control to the MUA and still resulted in out of control industrial action and disempowered workplaces, and threatens the Australian dream.
We are a nation of laws, not a nation of bullies. We believe in a world of law where the strong are just, the weak are secure and the peace is preserved. We want this to be true, but it is not. On our wharves every day we see how far our nation has departed from its promise and its values. We have allowed powerful vested interests to prevail over the common good. There is no better example of this than the Maritime Union of Australia. Here the weak are stood over, might is right and the peace is rarely preserved.
Until recently, the situation was this. At Port Botany there were bans on shift extensions, bans on upgrades and bans on overtime. At Brisbane, there were bans on upgrades, bans on shift extensions, bans on overtime, bans on call-ins, bans on working advanced or delayed start times, bans on the operation of RTGs beyond the safest minimum operating speed as determined by the driver, bans on the operation of the quay crane beyond the safest minimum operating speed as determined by the driver, bans on operating RTGs for more than two runs in a three-run shift or one run in a two-run shift—one hour stoppage at the start of each shift, three stoppages per day. There were bans on shift extensions, bans on upgrades, bans on overtime. In Fremantle, there were bans on upgrades, bans on shift extensions, bans on overtime, bans on call-ins, bans on working advanced or delayed start times, bans on the operation of RTGs, bans on the operation of quay cranes beyond the safest minimum operating speed as determined by the driver and bans on operating RTGs for more than two runs in three. In Melbourne, there was a ban on accepting subcontracted vessels.
It just goes on and on, but it is all possible because of the parasitic victories that have enabled this, from one to the next—from superannuation schemes that were meant to reduce inequality but have exacerbated it to industrial laws that enable the strong to bully the vulnerable, supported by IR academics and union aligned litigation lawyers that continue to be virtually unregulated, as we have seen in the Banksia case. The MUA tried to put a vessel ban on the six shipping lines that represent more than 80 per cent of our cargo. They've also tried on a 24-hour stop-work ban and they've put on two hour bans per shift. All the while, empty containers are piling up in Australia, with overseas suppliers now demanding that they build new containers, at US$1,500 per container—more cost, more reputational damage and more people out of work.
Some may ask: Who cares? If there are delays, businesses may have to pay up to 50 per cent more for their cargo, but they will eventually get it, right? The problem is that while they are waiting for products to sell, their staff still want to get paid, their children still want to be fed, the tax office still needs to be paid, banks kind of like to eventually get their loans repaid, landlords want their rent and councils want their rates. Let us not forget councils; they pretty much want their rates straightaway—the only level of government not to offer anything in terms of relief for Australians during this pandemic.
Ms McBain interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: I note the former mayor in the chamber disagrees with that. Oh well. As one small business in my community told me—
Ms McBain interjecting—
Mr FALINSKI: Hang on, Member for Eden-Monaro. This is a person speaking now. 'I am not speaking on behalf of big business. I'm just a small, insignificant retailer in the wider economy. I'm speaking on behalf of thousands of small family businesses that are desperately relying on the import process to survive. For us, this strike action does not simply mean foregoing a pay rise next year or the year after. It means losing my income completely—potential insolvency, bankruptcy, losing my home, my family and my kids.' As a female entrepreneur also told me: 'I don't begrudge unions working for their members to gain fair pay and safe working conditions or to fight against workplace abuse, but this has nothing to do with any of those issues. This is just about getting more money.' (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Stevens: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:49): This motion is a disgrace. It contains assertions that are simply not true. It implies that Australian workers held up vital medical supplies to sick Australians—in particular, cancer patients—when this simply did not occur. It criticises hardworking Australian maritime workers and belittles them for the work that they do. And I say that it's not on. Many of those workers who this motion criticises live in the community that I represent. They're hardworking, community-minded people, and I'm here to defend them from this outrageous and untruthful attack on their character and their work.
This motion condemns maritime workers for their actions during a pay dispute that occurred with Patricks in September. The motion is inaccurate, it's misleading, and it's simply not true, and I'll explain why this is so. When the dispute between Patricks and the MUA hit the news in September, I telephoned the MUA delegate to verify the media reports and he explained the truth regarding the dispute. I want to go through some of the claims that are made in the motion. The first claim made by the member for Mackellar is that workers were seeking a pay rise of 30 per cent for people on $300,000. The MUA delegate explained that the bargaining claim was for six per cent. It was settled for 1½ per cent. Now, I know the member for Mackellar has great difficulty in counting, but even a child will know that there's a big difference between 30 per cent and 1½ per cent. As to the claim that these workers are on $300,000 a year, when I put that to one of the wharfies, he said to me: 'Do you think if we earned $300,000 a year we'd be out on strike?' That, I think, explains it all. It's simply not true. The other claim that was made by the Prime Minister during this dispute is that the maritime workers were holding up ships from unloading materials during a recession. What the Prime Minister said at that time, is—listen to this:
… 40 of them out there. You can go down to Port Botany or down to Kurnell and have a look out there and you can see them lining up and every single one of them lining up is being held back from Australians getting what they need in the middle of a recession.
That's what the Prime Minister said. So, again, I asked the MUA workers that work on the docks if any of the ships were being held up. None of those vessels were held up. And—if you don't believe me, Deputy Speaker—then I thought, let's consult the company. So I went to the Patricks website, where, very handily, you can look and see where a particular vessel is. And here is what it looks like: these are the 40 vessels the Prime Minister claims were offshore—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Order! The member for Kingsford Smith will not use props.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE: Okay. Here's one of them, the Ever Ulysses, off the coast of the Philippines—legit—in the middle of the Indian Ocean! Here's another one, Synergy Keelung, to the east of New Zealand. If the Prime Minister thinks that you could stand on the deck at Port Botany and see a ship that's in the middle of the Indian Ocean, then he has a very powerful set of binoculars. I can just see the Prime Minister standing there at Port Botany, saying, 'I can see New Zealand from here'. What a complete load of rubbish. The Patricks website proves that this is simply untrue. But the most despicable thing about all of this is that this motion says that:
… vital medical supplies are being disrupted, at a time when they are needed the most …
Those opposite know that that is simply not true—to say that Australians are not getting medical supplies is simply not true. I read from a Sydney Morning Herald article on 30 September, which says:
The head of Patrick Terminals has admitted the industrial dispute roiling Australia's ports has not led to any containers of medical supplies being held up …
Elizabeth de Somer, chief executive from Medicines Australia, says: 'There are no shortages related to this action'. That is the voice of the industry telling the truth about this dispute—yet those opposite want to play on the anxiety of cancer patients, believe it or not, during a pandemic, and say that Australian workers are holding up their drugs. It's despicable. It's downright disgraceful, and, on behalf half of the workers that I represent, I'm not going to put up with it. You've got to stop telling lies about Australian workers. (Time expired)
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (18:54): As the seconder of the motion, of course I rise to speak in favour of it and commend the member for Mackellar for moving it. I mean, what kind of low-life union leaders—in the middle of one of the greatest challenges in the lifetime of anyone in this parliament—would behave in the way that they have in recent months? Of course it comes as no surprise, because this is nothing new. If you go back in time, this has been happening for generations and generations. I refer particularly to the disgraceful conduct of the precursor of the MUA during the Second World War, when they were holding up the loading of critical war supplies going to Australian and Allied troops in the South Pacific. This was extortionate behaviour. They held up the loading of arms and food and medical supplies to relieve our troops who were fighting the imperial Japanese forces that were trying to invade this country and subjugate the continent of Australia. It's absolutely disgraceful. It goes on and on and on, and still goes on to this day. Soon after the war, even Chifley had to stand up to the Barrier labour council in Broken Hill; it spread up to Mount Isa, of course, and there was the collaboration with the communists, seeking to overthrow our democracy. And of course now, in the middle of the once-in-a-century pandemic, we've got the union leaders of this country disrupting the supply chains that are keeping Australians safe and keeping our economy ticking over, at a time when our economy has had the greatest challenge since the Second World War—which was the last time they behaved like this, in such a disgraceful way—and they continue to seek to extort, as to the supply chains of this country and the businesses of this country.
We've got some significant trade challenges at the moment. That's obvious when you open a newspaper. It's obvious when you see the different industries that are struggling with our relationship with our major trade partner, China. Could there be a worse time to add uncertainty and disruption to the supply chains that are taking our product to export markets and bringing vital supplies in, when we're in the middle of a health pandemic in this country, when we're trying to expand our markets around the globe and when we're trying to support jobs and businesses and ensure that people stay in employment and off the unemployment queues? The reality is: 20 per cent of the jobs in this country in the private sector are linked to export industries. So, when you constrict supply chains, when you make it difficult for businesses to export overseas, you're putting jobs at risk.
I would've thought that the Labor Party, who claim to be the party of jobs and the party of the worker, would be against this sort of thing. But instead we've got them in here defending—not the workers; this is not about the workers—the behaviour of the unions, who are their overlords, their masters, as the member for Mackellar has pointed out. We know full well that the decisions about these disruptions, the decisions that have been taken on the waterfront, in the middle of a once-in-a-century pandemic, have been decisions of union leaders interested in the unions' interests, not in the interests of workers, and particularly not of the workers who rely on the jobs in the businesses that can't export their product overseas and around the world. The future of this country—
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr Falinski: They hurt other Australians. They're lawless and they hurt other Australians.
Mr STEVENS: Quite right. The future of this country will always be linked to our ability to export. As a country of 25 million people, we're not going to get rich selling lattes to each other. We have to export. We have to produce things in this country—to produce more than we need for our population—and then sell that great value-added product around the world. That's something that I spent a long time doing, before coming to this House, in the wool industry.
The wool industry is one of the great industries in this country. It built this country. It has a great history of being disrupted by the union movement—particularly by the wide comb strike. We had to have primary producers delivering wool to port and loading it onto ships during the strikes that the union movement incited in the eighties and before.
These are the industries that create jobs and are fundamental to the prosperity of our country. If you were a party that represented the workers, you'd back export industries and you'd back access to overseas markets. But it's all changed for Labor. If it was ever different, it's certainly not the case now that they're interested in backing the Australian workforce and the workers of this country. It's all about the union leaders and what they want to do to extort things from Australian businesses and Australian export industries, at the expense of higher paying jobs.
If you want to grow productivity in this country, if you want to increase real wages, we have to export. And if you want to export, here's a tip: you've got to have a waterfront that is efficient and can take high quality Australian product from this country to overseas markets. The behaviour of the MUA, not just in the past few months but particularly in the past few months, has been an absolute and utter disgrace. They should be condemned, and I thoroughly support this motion.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (18:59): I am a member that actually has a port in her seat and something to say on this issue. I rise very proudly to speak against this dangerous and, frankly, reckless motion before the House tonight. It is a good opportunity, however, for me to recognise the terrific work of the Maritime Union of Australia—the mighty MUA—in supporting Australian seafarers and, indeed, the entire Australian coastal shipping industry. I would like to pay a very special tribute to the Newcastle branch of the MUA, including the branch secretary and the honorary deputy branch secretary, Denis Outram. Members who don't have ports or don't have the slightest idea about ports like to mock me right now, but I am giving that shout-out because I have had literally thousands of seafarers operating in and out of the port and calling Newcastle home over many years. Shipping's an important part of our economy, our environment and, indeed, our national security.
This is a matter close to my heart, and Newcastle has a long and proud maritime history. The Port of Newcastle is central to our regional economy. Indeed, it is vital to our national economy. It is, yes, one of the oldest unionised ports in this nation—proudly so. It was established in 1799. It's played a key role as a critical link in our national supply chain ever since. With 25 operational berths, it handles more than 25 different cargoes, and 2,200 vessels visit each and every year into the largest port on the east coast. As a representative of the very proud city of Newcastle, I have seen again and again the extraordinary contribution of MUA members and seafarers. The fact that this government's members will do anything they can to besmirch the MUA just shows what a great job the union is in fact doing and what a threat they are to the Liberals' toxic work agenda.
When I think of the MUA, I think of the thousands of men and women they represent and work hard for every day to advocate for safe, secure and fair workplaces. I think of the times when they have intervened to protect Australian seafarers from shocking exploitation. I also think of their steadfastness in supporting workers during the worst of times, like when BlueScope and BHP sacked 80 seafarers overnight without warning. This was utterly shameful. They were on the high seas, thousands of miles away from their homes, without any support or union representation, when they found out they'd lost their jobs. But the MUA were very quick to get a link through to the seafarers, providing them with the support they needed, connecting them back with their families.
I also think of the MUA's achievements working alongside the International Transport Workers Federation under the leadership of Dean Summers, calling to account those foreign flagged ships that are exploiting vulnerable workers. These are seafarers who have now, because of COVID, spent 18 months on board their ships without a single day off. These are ships that have become floating sweatshops. They are the face of modern slavery, and I am looking at both of you who took part in the modern slavery bill legislation. That is right here on our shores today.
Most importantly, I'm now thinking of just how hard the MUA have fought against successive Liberal governments' brazen attacks on Australian shipping. Indeed, one of the most memorable parliamentary achievements of recent years was the day when the Senate shot down the Liberal government's toxic coastal shipping bill back in 2015.
Mr Falinski interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The member for Mackellar is too loud.
Ms CLAYDON: If passed, that appalling piece of legislation would have in fact created incentives for companies to sack their Australian crews and hire foreign workers for as little as $2 an hour. Its very purpose was to shrink the Australian shipping sector and to encourage ships to register their vessels offshore. One cruise ship operator in Newcastle—
Mr Falinski interjecting—
Ms CLAYDON: Madam Chair.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Newcastle will be heard in silence.
Ms CLAYDON: As an island nation, Australia's got a strong national interest in fostering its own coastal shipping industry. You should be backing Australian seafarers and Australian coastal shipping instead of taunting members in this parliament.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (19:04): I rise to support the important motion moved by my good friend the member for Mackellar. Labor should not be holding vital medicines hostage and turning Australia's wharves into battlefields during the COVID-19 crisis. With the complicit silence of federal Labor, the Maritime Union of Australia has been leveraging the COVID crisis to run industrial action at ports in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Fremantle. Under the cover of pay-rise strike action, the MUA is refusing to unload containers of vital medicines. At the beginning of October, it was estimated that over 100,000 containers were already caught up in the disruption. Thirty-eight ships were also facing delays to their berthing schedule. This meaningless chaos is creating additional expenses for Australian importers and exporters, who are already suffering under the COVID recession. The actions have threatened trade worth 5.4 per cent of GDP in New South Wales alone. With cargo banked up, imported goods are at risk of becoming more expensive, and this will hurt Australian consumers. In short, everyone loses as long as the MUA wins.
But, even more astonishingly, the union has been slowing the supply of vital medicines that Australians have needed. The CEO of Patrick Terminals says he has fielded calls from freight forwarders who were waiting weeks to unload vital diabetes medications. Medicines company Arititek has revealed it was facing order rejections from overseas suppliers due to the uncertainty over delivery and payments. Medicines Australia CEO Elizabeth de Somer was warned the unions' calls for reduced work hours would likely lead to entrenched medicine shortages. The strength and flexibility of each nation's health system has drawn a fine line between lives saved and lost during this crisis. Frankly, it's sickening that the MUA was happy to squeeze out our health system's resources in this context.
During the pandemic, Australians have made all sorts of sacrifices to protect their neighbours from COVID-19. Frontline hospital workers, doctors, nurses and GPs have put their own lives at risk to ensure Australians could be tested and treated, and we give thanks. We would expect that so many other people could do similar things. Business owners have shut their doors to stop the virus spreading. Tragically, many will never open again. Workers in hospitality, retail, tourism and other sectors have lost their jobs. Many have been forced onto welfare for the first time in their lives. Young Australians have sacrificed months of schooling and time with their friends. Victorians have surrendered their freedoms and their mental wellbeing through a long and painful winter in lockdown. Instead of embracing this spirit of solidarity and helping build resilience in our community, sadly, the MUA has held Australians hostage to extract their own selfish objectives. While the union demands pay rises, other Australians are dealing with the realities of COVID-19 in lost jobs and collapsed businesses. Now is the time that we should be backing our fellow Australians, not pursuing selfish, sectional, self-interested concerns which only hurt the broader community.
Sadly, of course, this is not the first time that unions have done exactly this type of action and undermined our nation in a time of crisis. Historian Hal Colebatch has described how union action during World War II undermined food and ammunition supplies to Australian troops facing the Japanese in New Guinea. As the Prime Minister has said, the MUA's action campaign is nothing but an extortion against the Australian people in the middle of a pandemic and a recession. Australians should be disgusted and are disgusted. Even the union itself is quietly ashamed of its own conduct. Rather than taking ownership for the disruption and delays, it has told false tales of faulty equipment and poor executive management. So far, the Labor Party have been silent in condemning this despicable action and runs interference for it in this parliament. They are complicit. If they had any concern for anything other than their own careers and their own puppet masters, the Leader of the Opposition and his apparatchiks would have the courage to stand up and condemn this despicable behaviour. As true as ever, Labor is happy to back militant unions against the interests of Australians and Australia—a gaping contrast to the productive approach taken by the Prime Minister during this crisis. It is time for the MUA to end this campaign of extortion and allow its members to get back to work and to back Australians and not to indulge in this selfish, self-interested, self-inflating practice again.
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (19:10): I have to say that I am very disappointed in this purely political motion by the member for Mackellar. Our maritime workers have had it tough enough this year and have stepped up when they were needed. Quite frankly, they simply don't deserve this kind of slanderous motion to be brought against them. This year, our maritime workers supported our bushfire evacuation and recovery efforts. They have worked hard to keep our goods moving during a global pandemic, and they have been 'rewarded' with job losses and unfair attacks from this government.
Let's start with the work that the Maritime Union of Australia did to raise funds to support bushfire relief efforts. MUA offices across the country became collection points, taking in food, clothing and personal hygiene products. They also collected financial donations, which were given to several schools in my electorate to help support local kids impacted by the bushfires—really important and really appreciated work. In the immediate aftermath of the bushfires, many people, including myself, called on the government to activate the Defence Force to help with evacuations and bring supplies to those who were desperately in need. Those calls took a long time to be answered. But, luckily, in some parts of the country, seafarers were there to do the work the government was avoiding.
In Mallacoota, Australian and New Zealand seafarers were the first on the scene. They brought much-needed supplies of food, water and diesel. The Norwegian-flagged ship Far Saracen was there a full 24 hours before the first naval vessel arrived. During the bushfires, they proved what a vital role shipping plays in times of crisis. They were needed and they were there. Civilian crews of the training vessel MV Sycamore and supply vessel Far Senator and the SeaLink Kangaroo Island Ferries were also there helping firefighters, helping stranded people and doing what they could to make a difference. In Eden, tugs were helping to protect those on the beaches and wharfs by using their hoses.
With coastal communities all across Australia cut off, seafarers did what they could, where they could. Imagine what we could have done if those were Australian-flagged ships. When the Aurora Australis was due to take its final voyage, after three decades of service to the Australian Antarctic Division, the Morrison government had the opportunity to acquire the ship and make it a specialist emergency response vessel for disasters just like the one we had just experienced. Our seafarers had shown what they could do, and I can tell you that many people on the South Coast would have been grateful for this assistance. There were fantastic efforts by volunteers in marine rescue, surf lifesaving and many other ocean based organisations all across the South Coast. They stepped up when they were needed. They were there for our community. But they could have been magnificently supported by Australian seafarers if only we had the capacity. But the Morrison government squandered this opportunity. If we had a formal coordinated emergency capacity we could have large-scale emergency relief and rescue operations.
Since the bushfires, people have continued to question why this didn't happen. Our seafarers showed it was possible. Instead, local people in my electorate who were employed on the Aurora have now lost their jobs. The Aurora Australis is set to be replaced but, due to delays, many of the seafarers who were expecting jobs on the vessel have been left in limbo, while others have been made redundant. The temporary vessel that will be arriving on Australian shores, the MPV Everest will have a foreign crew. We have local seafarers who could be manning this vessel, but instead the crew will come from overseas. Why is this government allowing this to happen? Why isn't the government stepping in to make sure Australian seafarers have jobs?
Instead, we have motions like this. Our seafarers, quite frankly, deserve better.
The truth is that our maritime workers are out there every day, doing their best, delivering high levels of productivity and trying to make a difference in what has been a hell of a year for them all. But the Morrison government have shown time and time again that they don't support our maritime workers. They won't stand up for workers—period. Well, I will always stand up for workers. I will stand up for local people who are losing their jobs. I promise you: their work has not gone unnoticed by me.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Urban Infrastructure
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (19:15): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the:
(a) substantial investment the Government has made since 2013 in funding urban infrastructure projects to reduce congestion and improve quality of life for people living in urban areas; and
(b) significant role the Government has played in partnering with state governments and private enterprise to ensure these essential projects are carried forward;
(2) acknowledges the positive impact these projects have had on the Australian economy through boosting productivity and creating jobs;
(3) commends the Government for its ongoing commitment to reducing traffic congestion and improving road safety through a record $110 billion transport infrastructure program, boosting the economy, creating jobs and getting Australians home sooner and safer; and
(4) congratulates the Government on the recent completion of numerous major infrastructure projects, including NorthConnex, which is enabling drivers to travel between Newcastle and Melbourne without stopping at a single traffic light, boosting productivity as well as improving traffic flow and pedestrian safety on Pennant Hills Road.
Pennant Hills Road has been consistently voted the worst road in Australia. That's why the federal government, in partnership with the New South Wales government and Transurban, has delivered NorthConnex. Opened on 30 October it has taken 5,000 trucks off Pennant Hills Road every day, giving the road back to our community, saving people valuable time, reducing noise and improving pedestrian safety and general quality of life for local residents. I want to share with you some of the positive impacts that NorthConnex has had on my community in their own words. Gail Zissermann from West Pennant Hills said: 'What a relief not to be squeezed between trucks on Pennant Hills Road anymore. You can see the jacarandas and bougainvilleas in full bloom, and I don't actually have to make plans anymore about how to avoid Pennant Hills Road when I need to go out locally.' Vernon McKenzie of Beecroft says: 'How's the serenity? So much serenity. It's whisper, whisper quiet now'.
It's hard for those who aren't from the area to understand how bad it has been. Michael Woods, a parent of a Little Athletics child who trains at Pennant Hills Park, said: 'I recall a quote from a new resident who arrived at training a few years ago. "It just took me 25 minutes to drive somewhere five minutes away," they said. The fact that a whole group of other parents did not look surprised defines what the pre-NorthConnex world was like.' Colin Mead from Cherrybrook told me about buying a boat from a house on Pennant Hills Road with his dad when he was a child. He had to run to the nearest pedestrian lights to press the button and get a break in the traffic just so they could pull out safely. That was in 1981! You can imagine how much worse it got over the 40 years that followed. This has now changed overnight with the opening of the NorthConnex. Kent Ross says, 'Last week I had to travel at peak hour, and the result was staggering. Instead of taking anything up to an hour to travel about six kilometres, it took 10 minutes.'
Russell Coward is a business owner in Castle Hill. His travel across the electorate has been transformed: 'What a dream run. Traffic flow on this normally nightmare road was amazing.' Mark from Berowra Heights says, 'Twenty years of Pennant Hills Road was tough. Today the tunnel is bliss. It has a cost, and thankfully my employer picks up the bill, and so they should. I'm available at work for an extra hour every day. My commute is one hour less each day, give or take a bit. It's magnificent.' A couple of people have described it as like going back in time. Margaret and Barrie Purdon said: 'Everything is just like it was when we arrived in Beecroft 44 years ago. The first night was so quiet I woke up because I couldn't hear the traffic.' Joan Kelly described today's Pennant Hills Road as being like the road in 1967. She said, 'It is like living in a parallel universe.'
Safety has been a big feature of the change for a lot of people. Tito Carrasco says, 'We've been able to use Pennant Hills Road without the fear of being bullied by semitrailers and big trucks,' and Roger Fairfax says, 'Since NorthConnex opened it's made Pennant Hills Road a much safer, less traumatic experience while driving, as trucks are not on your tail.' Many people have found the benefits to be far better than anticipated. Greg Denton from Dural says: 'The benefits are greater than the government has said, saving up to 15 minutes. Surely it's way more than that and especially so for the upcoming holiday traffic season. Personally the benefit to me has been a much simpler, smoother, quicker drive along Pennant Hills Road.'
The Bruce family have lived very close to Pennant Hills Road at West Pennant Hills for 30 years. They say, 'We knew it would be better when the tunnel opened, but the difference is absolutely amazing.' James Simmons says: 'I can't believe the difference NorthConnex has made to our area, to us personally. It's such a relief, especially at night. We'd also get this black dust covering the white painted windows and the ground around our area. That also seems to have stopped.' Iris Kao says: 'During the construction stage and before the opening of NorthConnex, I didn't expect or couldn't imagine there'd be any impact on me. However, there's been a huge positive impact on Pennant Hills Road from day one of the opening. It is life changing'.
Sue and Les Watkins have lived on Pennant Hills Road for 44 years. When they moved, their family would picnic in their front yard on weekends. By 2019 that was an impossible thought. They said, 'NorthConnex has been a godsend: few heavy trucks and no daily traffic jams, quiet nights and traffic flowing smoothly. We have always loved living here and NorthConnex has returned our suburb to the local community'. Eugene O'Reilly told me how much the golfers at Pennant Hills Golf Club are loving the change: 'The second green, all of the par 5 third and the fourth tee are a marvel at Pennant Hills Golf Club as players have returned to the serenity expected from a suburban golf course.'
I would like to finish with the words of Evelyn Proimos of Beecroft. She says: 'At the opening of NorthConnex tunnel Julian Leeser mentioned that it gave us our community back. No truer words were spoken'. I want to thank our wonderful community and I want to say what a great benefit NorthConnex has been.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): Do I have a seconder for the motion?
Mrs Wicks: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (19:20): It is not often that I rise to speak on government private members' motions, but this one caught my eye when it came through on the Notice Paper. Whilst I want to commend the member for bringing forward a motion on infrastructure spending, because it is dear to my heart, I do think there is a couple of things that need pointing out.
The first is in relation to NorthConnex. This project was actually initiated by the Labor government federally under the then minister for infrastructure. The memorandum of understanding for the project between the F3 and the M2 was signed by a Labor government on 4 June 2013 and the New South Wales coalition government. That memorandum was with Transurban. Both levels of government committed $405 million in each of their 2013 budgets.
This is the problem with this government. We got up to 2015 and there was not a single new infrastructure project announced. It was all Labor projects that they were starting and digging the soil on. That's what happens when you lose government: you don't get to turn the sods and you don't get to turn up at the openings. They were legacy projects that we are now seeing, finally, actually delivered, but they were delivered under a Labor government when we committed that funding.
When you say 'Thank you' and your constituents come and talk to you about these projects, it's important to actually understand where that funding came from in the first place. The difference between what a Labor government did and what this government is doing is that we funded projects in Liberal Party seats. We knew that congestion wasn't just a problem in inner-city Labor held seats or seats in Western Sydney that Labor held. We knew there were problems in Liberal seats as well. That is the problem with this government. They have used infrastructure funding to pork barrel their seats. That is a damning indictment of their capacity to actually understand what their role of government is. It isn't just about staying in power and governing, much as it is great that you're all there saying how fabulous it was that you were able to announce funding for this. It is actually about delivering for all Australians, whether they live in the seats you hold or the seats that we or Independent or other crossbench members hold.
This is the problem with this government: lots of announcements about things but no delivery. The fact that they are now delivering projects that the current Leader of the Opposition announced when he was minister for infrastructure is a great thing. We're really pleased to see it finished. But the fact that you have had $1.2 billion each year—last year you topped it with $1.7 billion—of underspends in infrastructure shows just how much you're announcing but just how little you're actually delivering.
I particularly want to focus a bit on the Urban Congestion Fund as one of these iconic examples of how skewed this government's funding commitments are when it comes to issues of urban congestion. The government wants us to thank them in this motion for reducing urban congestion and improving the quality of life for people living in urban areas. But this couldn't be more detached from the actual truth. The government has used the Urban Congestion Fund to funnel money into their own seats. They were largely around announcements during the election campaign. In the lead-up to the last election, 133 of 160 Urban Congestion Fund projects were in Liberal and targeted seats. What I am referring to here is the announcement of those projects, not necessarily the delivery of them. It is an important distinction to make because—despite the fact that there have been announcements—when it comes to the actual delivery under this program, this one program has underspent by $572 million last year alone, with only $148 million of the promised $720 million getting out the door. So, not only have you got all of these announcements in Liberal Party seats; you can't actually deliver them. This is part of the problem that we've got when it comes to infrastructure. In South Australia, Tasmania, the ACT and the Northern Territory, the government didn't spend a single cent through the Urban Congestion Fund—not a cent!—and in New South Wales, again, zero dollars spent, in terms of this particular fund. This government claims credit for previous Labor governments' announcements. It's very happy to be there at the opening, yet it can't deliver even on its own pork-barrelled promises when it comes to infrastructure.
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (19:25): The Morrison government's record investment in infrastructure projects across the country is creating much-needed jobs and reducing congestion on our roads and our rail network. The investment is also improving the quality of life for those who use and live near busy travel corridors, meaning they can spend less time commuting and more time doing the things they love and being with the people they love, and so I rise today in support of the member for Berowra's motion. I share his commitment to seeing world-class infrastructure built in our local communities, including in my electorate of Robertson.
The coalition government's 10-year infrastructure plan will see a record $110 billion invested in our roads and rail to create jobs and boost productivity. This includes $6.1 billion towards the Roads to Recovery Program, which will support important maintenance on local road infrastructure. In Robertson, for example, the Central Coast Council will receive almost $14 million over the next four years to fix local roads in the Central Coast community. As part of that, there's $335,000 that will go towards improving Patonga Drive, with planning currently underway and work expected to take place this month. There's also $320,000 towards fixing Booker Bay Road at Booker Bay, a project that will commence in February next year as part of the Roads to Recovery Program. Maintaining and improving our local roads is critical, especially as more people work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. These roads are part of the more than 60,000 sites which have been repaired and upgraded through this federal government initiative.
The $4 billion Urban Congestion Fund is also helping to fund infrastructure projects that will reduce traffic on local roads. Under this package, almost $87 million will go towards upgrading 29 individual road projects as part of the Central Coast Roads Package. I'm pleased to update this chamber that, as part of this package, the road upgrade with drainage and pavement works have been completed at Gem Road in Pearl Beach. Road patching and resurfacing has also been completed on Racecourse Road between Bean Street West and Showground Road, which is really good news for the hundreds of cars which travel along there every day. Stage 4 of the major upgrades to Oceano Street in Copacabana continues to progress and, one street over, the road safety improvements to Del Monte Place began on the first half of the road in October. These upgrades will help to rectify some of the longstanding issues in relation to local roads, with these critical investments possible thanks to the coalition government's responsible fiscal management.
Despite many residents on the Central Coast continuing to work from home, recent analysis from Sea Change Solutions shows weekday traffic along the M1 motorway is actually close to returning to pre-COVID levels. I'm advised that their analysis also shows a more than 10 per cent increase in the number of heavy vehicles travelling along the M1 since last year. The recent opening of the $3 billion NorthConnex tunnel will help to take up to 5,000 of these heavy vehicles off Pennant Hills Road and will reduce congestion for the tens of thousands of motorists who travel to Sydney each day. I was really delighted to attend the opening of NorthConnex with my state and federal colleagues, including the member for Berowra, at the end of October. We were also joined by some of the 17,000 men and women who have worked on the site since construction began. Locally, more than 1,500 Central Coast workers and 50 businesses contributed to making this project a reality. This included DH Holland Constructions based in West Gosford, ColdMist Cooling at Empire Bay, BRP Industries in Somersby, and Goodgear at West Gosford. The project has received praise from our local business leaders, including Matthew Wales, the president of the Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, who called NorthConnex: 'a game-changing piece of infrastructure'. NorthConnex will allow motorists travelling from the Central Coast to bypass 40 sets of traffic lights on their journey to the Sydney CBD, meaning commuters will be able to get to where they need to be sooner.
The Morrison government has a proven track record of investing in important urban infrastructure across the country and creating thousands of jobs in the process. Our 10-year, record $110 billion plan illustrates our vision for reducing congestion and improving the quality of life for people right across Australia. I thank the member for Berowra for introducing this motion and I commend it to the chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Vamvakinou ): The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
F ederation Chamber adjourned at 19 : 30
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
Questions Without Notice: Rudd, Mr Kevin
Ms Claressa Surtees
Clerk of the House of Representatives
Department of the House of Representatives
Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Clerk
I am writing to inform you that in Question Time today, I made the following statement in response to a question from the Member for Corio in relation to Australians returning home during the pandemic, based on information I understood to be correct at the time.
I thank the member for his question and wonder why he ' d want to bring personalities into this, given that Mr Rudd has done the same thing.
I have subsequently been advised that Mr Rudd has not travelled internationally during the pandemic, and was not one of the 95,525 individuals (as at 5pm 7 December 2020) who had been independently granted an exemption to depart Australia during this period by the Border Force Commissioner.
I also apologise to Mr Rudd for the statement and am pleased to correct the record.
I provide this information so that it may be treated in the same manner as an answer to a Question in Writing.
I trust that this letter is of assistance to the House.
Yours sincerely
SCOTT MORRISON