The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by MrWood.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (09:32): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 will amend the Customs Act 1901 to make consequential amendments resulting from the sixth review of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, otherwise known as the Harmonized System.
The bill will amend the definition of 'tobacco products' in the Customs Act 1901 to include goods classified to a new tariff subheading for products, such as e-cigarettes, that has been developed in the review of the Harmonized System. This amendment will ensure that goods classified to the new tariff subheading that contain tobacco will continue to be treated as tobacco products under the Customs Act. This will ensure that such goods remain subject to the same treatment as other imported products that contain tobacco.
The amendments made by this bill are consequential to the amendments that will be made to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 by the Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
First Reading
Bill, explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wood.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (09:34): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement the changes agreed to in the sixth review of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System—the Harmonized System. The measures in this bill will ensure that Australia's customs tariff, which is based on the Harmonized System, reflects the changing patterns of international trade, the emergence of new technologies and the international will to regulate certain goods of concern.
The Harmonized System is a hierarchical system of four-digit and six-digit codes, legal notes and interpretative rules which enable the identification of any internationally traded goods. The World Customs Organization developed the Harmonized System to strengthen and support trade between countries with different trade regulatory arrangements. Australia is one of almost 200 countries that use the Harmonized System.
Australia's Customs Tariff Act 1995—the Customs Tariff Act—and the Australian Harmonized Export Commodity Classification implement the Harmonized System in Australia. These domestic instruments customise the structure of the Harmonized System to better identify goods that are of unique importance to Australia.
Every five years, the World Customs Organization reviews the Harmonized System. The purpose of these reviews is to update the Harmonized System's tariff headings and subheadings to better reflect changing patterns of international trade, for example, due to technological developments, changing volumes of trade, and the relative growth and decline in importance of certain goods.
Australia was an active participant in the World Customs Organization's sixth review of the Harmonized System. Through this process, Australia secured several priority changes that will benefit Australian industry, such as the development of new tariff codes for placebos for clinical trials and virgin olive oil. The outcome of the review, accepted by World Customs Organization member countries in early 2020, makes approximately 350 amendments to the Harmonized System. Australia is committed to fulfilling its international obligation to implement these changes by 1 January 2022.
The Harmonized System is of critical importance to Australian traders and industry. Ensuring that Australia's tariff is consistent with the international Harmonized System used by our trading partners is an important part of the government's support for our importers and exporters.
This bill will make amendments to the legal notes and four-digit to eight-digit tariff codes in the Customs Tariff Act. It will remove tariff subheadings in schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, where the goods classified to these subheadings are no longer traded in sufficient volumes, such as world globes and answering machines. The bill will insert new tariff subheadings to reflect the development of certain new technologies, such as smartphones, drones and hybrid and electric vehicles. It will also insert new tariff subheadings to accommodate the increased trade of other goods, such as insect-based food products.
Other proposed changes in the bill will enable improved monitoring of the trade in particular goods. For example, the insertion of new seven-digit and eight-digit tariff subheadings and changes to the wording of notes and additional notes in schedule 3 will enhance international monitoring of the global trade in wood products, cultural articles and goods for use in e-cigarettes and vaping. Similar amendments will enable easier identification and monitoring of goods that are the subject of international agreements, such as synthetic diamonds, certain chemicals and dual-use goods.
The amendments proposed under this bill will preserve existing rates of customs duty for the majority of goods. There are exceptions to this general approach for three categories of goods: flat-panel display modules, semiconductor based transducers and electronic waste and scrap. The bill will simplify the tariff classifications of these three categories of goods, so they are no longer required to be imported under multiple tariff classifications that may have different rates of customs duty. Instead, each of these categories of goods will have new dedicated tariff subheadings and will apply a 'free' rate of customs duty.
Where there are changes to tariff subheadings in schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, this bill will reflect such changes in relevant schedule 4 concessional items. This approach will ensure that goods currently eligible for concessional treatment continue to be able to access a 'free' rate of customs duty.
Finally, the bill will amend schedules 4A to 13 of the Customs Tariff Act, to reflect the insertion of new subheadings in schedule 3 that have a duty rate other than 'free' under Australia's 14 established free trade agreements.
To implement the changes made by the sixth review of the Harmonized System, the government will also amend the Customs Act 1901 through the Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021.
Debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Public Works Committee
Approval of Work
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (09:40): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: North Queensland Mid-Term Refresh Program—RAAF Base Townsville, Townsville Field Training Area and HMAS Cairns.
The aim of the Department of Defence North Queensland Mid-Term Refresh Program is to meet essential short-term base sustainment needs at three defence bases in North Queensland. It is proposed to achieve this by providing vital estate maintenance and upgrades to support capability at all three sites.
These bases are experiencing critical issues, such as ageing and inadequate infrastructure and noncompliance with infrastructure standards, and no longer meet all current work, health and safety requirements. Unless these are addressed, there is a risk that the facilities and the infrastructure will be increasingly less able to support current levels of capability. The estimated cost of the program is $111.2 million, excluding GST.
The project was referred to the Public Works Committee on 15 April 2021. The committee has recommended that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the project. Subject to parliamentary approval the works are expected to commence from late 2021 and be completed by late 2023.
On behalf of the government, I would like to thank the committee for undertaking a timely inquiry. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (09:43): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Construction of an Intermediate Level Solid Waste Storage Facility.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, is proposing to construct a new intermediate-level solid waste storage facility at its Lucas Heights campus in Sydney. The new building will store radioactive waste on an interim basis until the proposed National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is operational. This waste is primarily the by-product of nuclear medicine production, which benefits approximately 12,000 Australians every week.
ANSTO is responsible for the safe interim storage and predisposal management of its radioactive waste. The existing Lucas Heights storage facility is forecast to reach capacity from 2027. The National Radioactive Waste Management Facility is unlikely to commence receiving waste until after 2030. The interim solution will bridge the gap between the expiration of the existing storage capacity and the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility operations. The estimated cost of the works is $59.8 million, excluding GST.
The works must be referred to, considered by and reported on to both houses of parliament by The Public Works Committee before work may commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction activity is expected to commence on January 2024 with completion expected in August 2025. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
Reference
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (09:45): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment—Macquarie Island Research Station Modernisation Project.
The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment is proposing to redevelop the scientific research station and associated infrastructure on Macquarie Island. This includes the renewal of field huts, which are dispersed across Macquarie Island, and the decommissioning and removal of redundant assets. The project will address hazards to the use and operation of the research station associated with the poor condition of existing assets, address high-risk issues associated with the siting of facilities and reduce ongoing operating costs by rationalising and consolidating similar functions. The project will contribute to a key part of the Australian Antarctic strategy, which is to establish Australia's position of science leadership in Antarctica through the development of modern and flexible infrastructure, including more efficient and flexible use of existing research stations. The estimated cost of the works is $49.8 million, excluding GST.
The works must be referred to, considered by and reported on to both houses of parliament by the Public Works Committee before work may commence. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction activity is expected to commence in early 2022 with completion expected in mid-2028. I commend the motion to the House.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Quarantine Facility in Victoria
Approval of Work
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (09:47): On behalf of the Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service, I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works, it is expedient that the following work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: New quarantine facility in Victoria.
The government, in partnership with the Victorian government, wishes to proceed urgently with the construction of a new quarantine facility in Victoria. The Commonwealth is working with Victoria to progress the development of the project, which includes consideration of the Commonwealth processes, agreeing design requirements, procurement, contracting and a build program.
I note that a proposal to proceed with the construction project without referral to the Public Works Committee is not common. The government very much supports the work of the Public Works Committee and has not taken this decision lightly. The government has decided that, given the urgency of the project, it is not feasible to refer these works to the Public Works Committee as a precursor to the commencement of the works. However, noting the public importance of this urgent project, the government proposes to offer a briefing to the committee at an appropriate time. Subject to parliamentary approval, the project will commence as soon as possible. I commend the motion to the House.
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (09:49): We agree that building quarantine facilities not just in Victoria but all across the country is urgent. We agree that the government has made the decision not to refer this to the Public Works Committee because this matter is urgent. But where has the urgency been for the last year? Where has the urgency been in the Commonwealth actually accepting responsibility for what is in the Constitution as a Commonwealth responsibility? Where has the Morrison government's responsibility been when it comes to quarantine? It has been nowhere.
They did a deal back in March 2020 with the states and territories, when all of us thought that coronavirus was going to be over very quickly. We all thought, when this pandemic started: 'This is going to be like SARS. It's going to be over very quickly.' So they did a deal with the states then to look at hotel quarantine. It has been evident for over 12 months now that hotel quarantine is simply not fit for purpose. We have seen I think it is over 22 or 23 outbreaks recently from hotel quarantine and, particularly when we get to the delta variant, it is clear that hotel quarantine is no longer fit for purpose. It is no longer fit for purpose, and it is absolutely a disgrace.
The Morrison government had two jobs: roll out the vaccine program and fix quarantine. And what has it done? Absolutely nothing. It is failing at both. It is long past time that this government accepted responsibility for quarantine. It is terrific that they are now building a facility in Victoria. That is important, and that should be done, but it should have been done over 12 months ago. Every single state and territory should have a Howard Springs facility. Every single state and territory should have the capacity to ensure quarantine is done properly in this nation, and it is an absolutely damning indictment on this government that they have failed to do this. So, while we accept and agree that there is some urgency about this, where was the urgency over 12 months ago?
The best time to have built proper quarantine facilities was a year ago. The next best time to build them is now. So this is good news for Victorians, but what about the rest of the country? What about Queensland? We know there has been an outbreak from hotel quarantine just this week in Queensland. Where is the Commonwealth quarantine facility for Queensland? Again, we've seen outbreaks because of transmission from people transporting flight attendants in New South Wales. Where is the Commonwealth quarantine facility for the people of New South Wales? Where is the quarantine facility for South Australia or for Western Australia? Where is it for Tasmania? This is an absolute failure of governance on the part of the Morrison government, and it is something that should be called out every single day.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (09:52): The Morrison government had two jobs and it has failed at them both. It had the job of getting quarantine right. It is a constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth has ducked that responsibility from the get-go in this pandemic. The other job that it has failed to get right is the vaccine rollout. But right here and now I'm going to speak about quarantine, because the exemption of this project from the ordinary requirements of this parliament and the ordinary requirements that it go before the Public Works Committee is only needed because the Morrison government failed to get onto this last year. We've known for 12 months that hotel quarantine is grossly inadequate, that hotel quarantine is a temporary fix, that hotel quarantine is not the perfect solution—far from it; hotel quarantine is not even an adequate solution.
We've had 24 outbreaks from hotel quarantine. Think about that: 24 outbreaks, each of them capable of giving rise to a massive spread of this deadly disease across our country. It's only good luck, good management by state premiers and the immensely cooperative behaviour of Australians that has prevented those 24 outbreaks from the inadequate hotel quarantine arrangements that we have and has saved us from the recurrence of the deaths that we had across our country, particularly in aged care, in the middle of last year.
The government commissioned a report from an eminent former secretary of the Commonwealth health department to tell the Commonwealth government what needed to be done for quarantine in Australia. And what did we get? We got a report from this eminent former secretary of the Commonwealth department of health that told the Commonwealth of Australia that they needed to build dedicated quarantine facilities. It's not like this is a new idea for the Commonwealth of Australia. Australians in every capital city are deeply familiar with the Commonwealth-run facilities, which are now museums—think North Head in Sydney or Point Nepean in Victoria—where the Commonwealth used to have its own dedicated facilities for infectious diseases. It doesn't now because we've resolved other arrangements to deal with infectious diseases, but this pandemic is presenting us with a challenge that the Morrison government has utterly failed to meet. It's continuing to fail to meet this challenge. It thumbed its nose at Victoria's proposals when they were first made.
We still don't have exactly clear what it is the Commonwealth wants to do. It took months to get to the position that it's announcing here today, and that is that it wants to go ahead with a joint venture with Victoria to build a dedicated quarantine facility in Victoria. It should have been doing this last October. We've known since last October, when the report that it commissioned was delivered to the Commonwealth government, that a Howard Springs style facility is what is required. There hasn't been a single escape of this deadly virus from Howard Springs. There hasn't been an outbreak from Howard Springs. There has been an outbreak from every part of the hotel quarantine system. Victoria had to go back into lockdown because of someone leaving hotel quarantine in South Australia and spreading the virus throughout Melbourne, which happily, again, we've managed to get on to. But it's a disgrace. It is a disgrace that the Morrison government has squibbed its responsibilities, ducked its responsibilities, run away from its responsibilities. You've only got to think about the disgraceful performance of the Prime Minister going right back to the bushfires. 'I don't hold a hose, mate'—that is Scott Morrison. 'I don't hold a hose, mate,' and he's at it again.
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs needs to refer to members by their correct titles.
Mr DREYFUS: I apologise, Mr Speaker. You've only got to look at the Prime Minister's behaviour since he became Prime Minister. This Prime Minister ducks responsibility. This Prime Minister says, 'I don't hold a hose, mate.' This is his excuse for going on holiday during appalling bushfires besetting our country. Ever since the pandemic started he hasn't wanted to take responsibility, he hasn't taken responsibility and he's still not taking responsibility. Every time something bad happens, he pushes everything off to the states. He's not grappling with what needs to happen now. We know what needs to happen in quarantine. We know that we need to have a dedicated facility in every state. Of course, it's pleasing for Victorians to think that the Commonwealth government has finally, after repeated entreaties from the Victorian government, accepted its responsibility for national quarantine. It's very good that we are to get a facility in Victoria, but what about South Australia? What about Western Australia? What about Queensland? What about New South Wales? And where is the expansion in the Northern Territory? Apparently, it's proceeding very slowly. We need to have a quarantine facility in every state. We need to have national responsibility for quarantine. We need to have national standards for quarantine, and that's because, sadly, this pandemic isn't going away.
I'll finish by saying the vaccination rollout needs to speed up. We don't just need national quarantine facilities. We don't just need the Commonwealth government, the Morrison government, to accept its responsibility for quarantine. What we actually need is the Commonwealth government taking responsibility for the vaccination rollout as well, making sure that, unlike the rest of the developed world, which has got on with vaccinating its population, the Australian population can be protected too. It's pathetic that just three per cent of our population has been vaccinated. In the United States, 50 per cent of adults are fully vaccinated and 70 per cent have had their first jab. There are similar numbers in Britain, much higher numbers in Israel—and you could go on. We're at about 100th in the world on vaccination. It's a pathetic effort. The Morrison government has failed in both the jobs that it had this year. It has failed at national quarantine and it has failed at vaccination.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:00): First off, I would commend the Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories for bringing these works to the table. Obviously, they are going to be bypassing the Public Works Committee, and I make no criticism there. What I am deeply concerned about and somewhat incredulous about, as a Victorian who has watched the people he represents being locked down on four occasions, and given, as the Acting Premier of Victoria says, the wicked nature of this virus, is the fact that we are doing this now, when it has been such a long period since this plague hit our shores. If you were in the outer suburbs, you had been locked down on four occasions, you had made the sacrifices that governments had asked you to make to keep the community safe, you had seen that over the forward estimates we will have a trillion dollars in debt and you had seen the economy rebounding after the work that you in those outer suburban areas and each of the states had done to keep everyone safe, you would expect a government and its Prime Minister to lead. You would think we would not be welcoming the first mention of this public works co-facility in Victoria but speaking about the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth or tenth. Fundamentally, it is stunning to me that we have a Prime Minister who basically won't lead.
Perhaps we should ask a tradie from the outer suburbs to come in here, because he or she would know what to do. Everyone knows what the difficulty is. It is that we have a hotel quarantine system that's designed to fail. Everyone knows it. We see the evidence of this in the commonsense test. Australians have great common sense, and everyone I speak to knows that hotel quarantine doesn't work. The government will say to you, 'Well, 97 per cent of people have come through.' Have a look what happens when three per cent or even one per cent gets out into the community. You cannot have a system that is city based. I have watched the buses come to the hotels in Adelaide and Melbourne, where people have decamped from the flight to the buses to the hotel. It is such a fragile system. People I've spoken to in South Australia, even though they haven't had a lot of outbreaks, know it's a fragile system. Every state premier and chief minister, if they were honest, would state that it doesn't work, that we need consolidated facilities.
Think about the money. We are over a trillion dollars in debt, and this government has been implementing short-term measures to deal with the impact of this virus hitting our shores and the disruption that it causes to our way of life. What is the long-term benefit of that trillion dollars being expended? Virtually nothing. There is no guarantee. The state premiers have fought tooth and nail to bring the Prime Minister, the leader of our country, to the table. Did the Prime Minister generate this? No, he didn't; it was the state premiers. As my colleagues from Victoria, the member for Ballarat and the member for Isaacs, have said, he had to be dragged to the table by the state premiers.
I've been here when prime ministers have led. Paul Keating was a leader, Bob Hawke was a leader and John Howard was a leader. Does Mr Morrison seriously think that if John Howard were Prime Minister he would have outsourced national security, quarantine and border protection to the states? How long would that have lasted? People say this Prime Minister is the heir apparent, but there is absolutely no way that John Howard would have allowed those things to occur. Those on the other side need to reflect on that. Leaders lead; they don't get told what to do by a focus group. This is a guy who won't get out of bed without checking the focus group to see which side of the bed he wants to get out of. That's effectively what we're facing here. This is a guy that just won't lead. This country has confronted a life-changing event, which is a plague, a virus, that is completely changing our way of life. I keep on saying that, when leaders lead, what leaders need to do is tell people how we get out of this. One of the things that I reflect on when we're looking at this measure, which has been brought to the table by the efforts of the state premiers, is: where is the leadership? We've just spent hundreds of billions of dollars, and the public still don't know where we're going. This guy's hopped in the car and is driving like Mr Magoo, all over the shop, making sure that we avoid the potholes, falling in occasionally and coming back out again. The problem is there is no leadership.
If you're in the outer suburbs, if you're that tradie that should be Prime Minister because at least you would know what to do, when you go for a job, you say: 'This is what we need to do. This is the amount of money we're spending. This is the direction.' For parents out there who are planning their kids' futures, there is no direction. The direction seems to be provided by the states. In Victoria, particularly with the second lockdown, because of the highly infectious nature of this disease, because of the fact that you have a hotel system that was designed for the short term, as the member for Ballarat said, you can understand that when we had a crisis we had to respond to a short-term measure was necessary. We will acknowledge that. But then to keep that short-term measure that was agreed upon by the national cabinet and basically go: 'We'll just keep on going. We'll just keep it there, keep it there, keep it there,' and then get dragged to the table by others, again, what I say is when you're a leader, when you sit in the highest office in the land in that chair, you lead. The Australian people give you the licence to lead them; they want to be led. They are being led by the state premiers, I might add.
The irony is that when the Prime Minister travels overseas to the United Kingdom, as he did, and they go, 'Job well done,' he should bring the state premiers and the chief ministers with him, because, in effect, the very hard measures that were needed to be taken by the community were taken by our premiers, the premiers in each of those affected states. They're still being affected, and yet the Prime Minister is still trying to avoid responsibility. At some stage, 'The buck stops with me.' The buck stops with the Prime Minister. When do you keep on handballing, Polly Farmer-like, through every window possible? At some stage you've got to say: 'I am the Prime Minister. We've asked you to do this. We're building a quarantine facility, and here's what we're going to do in the future,' because of all of those Australians who are still stranded and want to come back over; businesses basically saying they need certainty, they need a direction; and international students, which I think we need to bring back into our country, because they add to the lifeblood of tertiary institutions. To basically say to them, 'We're going to wait, and we're going to vaccinate people,'—well, we are not vaccinating people.
The point that has been made by the member for Ballarat and the member for Isaacs is this: the government had two jobs and it's done none of them. That is astonishing. In my time in this place, and it's nearly 22 years, I have never seen a government abrogate responsibility for its key mandate. If you see Maslow's hierarchy of needs and if the public votes on this in an election, they vote for a federal government to keep them safe—that's quarantine and national security—and if they're rolling out something like a national rollout, to basically do it, to implement it, to take responsibility for it and to oversee it. I've not seen a government on those two absolutely essential planks of what makes a government not do it—and then to blame them!
As long as I'm in this place I will never forget that when we were enduring the second lockdown and the aftermath after Victorians made incredible sacrifices and in a world-leading way—I think it is one of the three capital cities in the world of that size that saw off a second wave; Victorians should be incredibly proud of what they did, I was there, and the sacrifices they were making—you had two ministers from Victoria on the government side who didn't say, 'Well done, Victorians.' They basically said, 'It's the Premier's fault.'
I also remember watching the health minister, particularly when we started getting on top of the second wave lockdown, basically undermining public confidence in the measures being undertaken, the necessary measures based on the best possible health advice, by attacking Premier Andrews. If we're in this as a national fight against this virus, we're all in it. You can't hop in it. What I'm watching is them hopping in, hopping out, hopping in, hopping out. You don't try to claim victory after the victory has been earned by other people. That's not the way; it's not an Australian way. It's un-Australian.
What I have seen in this period of time—and I notice that my time is running out here—is a Prime Minister who is the least likely to lead. I've never seen a Prime Minister not lead. Well, Prime Minister, it's time for you to lead; do your job. You were elected to protect our country and to make sure that the vaccine rollout was done appropriately. You have done neither; start doing both.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (10:10): I'd like to thank the member for Holt for his contribution on this debate because he made a really important point about taking responsibility, taking action and taking credit. This Prime Minister is certainly choosy about when he does all three—it's usually, potentially, to his own political advantage but not to the advantage of the people of Australia. Today, that's exactly what we're here to talk about. Of course, we welcome the federal government finally coming to the table to say that they'll support a specific, purpose-built quarantine facility for Victoria. We have lots of points to make about, 'What about the other states?' but let's just look at the Victorian situation.
A couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing, to co-fund and to become part of the solution for quarantine. But, in typical form for this Prime Minister and this government, the Victorian state government said, 'We've got a plan; this is where it's going,' but the feds came in and said: 'Oh, we like your plan but we're in charge here. Let's move it to the other side of Melbourne.' They couldn't even pick up the phone and have a reasonable conversation with the Victorian state government and say, 'Obviously you looked at both of these sites and you've come down favouring one, can you tell us why?' No. They had to come out like a bull at a gate and dragged to it, kicking and screaming; they couldn't cope. Instead of just ticking the box and saying yes to the Victorian state government they said, 'We'll help you with quarantine but not at that site.' Essentially, that's what they did.
Today they've done another backflip. They decided the Victorian government was correct about the site and now they're going to rush this through to support that. But there's no Prime Minister on the screen today and no Deputy Prime Minister in here, eating humble pie and saying, 'We were wrong.' We have lost two weeks construction time—again. What month is it? It is 2021 and it is June. We are in another winter in Victoria. There's only one part of the country that's doing hotel quarantine with that climate, and that's Victoria. So we're now in another winter without a for-purpose quarantine facility built. Why? Because we have a federal government abrogating responsibility. That's why.
The story here today is that this government, rather than leading and rather than taking responsibility for the quarantine program, has outsourced it to the states and to hotels. Let me tell you what Melburnians think about hotel quarantine. Last winter they thought hotel quarantine was a good short-term idea to get us through the first couple of months. It's now a long, long time while we've been dealing with something that was supposed to be short term. As we've said in here, we've now had 24 breaches in hotel quarantine. That's not surprising: they're not purpose-built for quarantine. They're hotels: they're built for tourists. This government has taken all of this time to come to terms with the fact that the Australian people will hold them accountable for how this program works.
And it's not just Victoria, the state that they like to demonise; we now have hotel breaches coming from South Australia. In fact, let's just remind the House that the most recent Victorian lockdown was actually caused by a quarantine breach out of South Australia, not out of Victoria. Let's just make sure everyone is clear about that. We're on our 24th breach now, with one happening in Queensland, and yet here we are without a government, a Prime Minister or a Deputy Prime Minister coming in here to eat the humble pie that should go with this decision—to apologise to Victorians for confusing them about which should be the preferred site and for disrespecting the Victorian state government and their decision-making processes about which of these two sites was the best site.
I stand before you as someone who represents a seat which the Avalon Airport is just outside of. There were lots of locals who thought having this facility at Avalon was a terrible idea. But the bottom line is that the Victorian government had already looked at this and, for good reasons, they had landed at Mickleham and not at Avalon. At some stage, this government needs to determine that if it wants to work with the states to do things then collaboration actually requires it not to stand back, waiting for the chance to point the finger of blame at someone and so avoid taking responsibility itself; collaboration means respecting the state premiers, respecting the state governments, respecting their processes and not losing time in the delivery of something that shouldn't be happening just in Victoria but should be happening all around the country. Let's look at the fuss about the Toowoomba idea coming from Annastacia. Let's look at that farce. It is absolutely appalling that the government would dismiss an idea coming from a state premier.
Of course, this side of the House supports this. We've been calling for it, but it's just one step. We need one in every state, and we need not to lose any more time.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (10:15): The government had two jobs this year: to get the vaccination rollout sorted out, and to get hotel quarantine out of the picture and get a national quarantine program in place. They have failed at both. Hotel quarantine was okay at the start. We are 15 months into this pandemic. It was okay at the start; it was a good short-term measure. But, instead, they've let it run on and on. There has been a complete failure of leadership at the national level to get a national quarantine system in place. Every state of this Commonwealth needs a national quarantine system centre in it, including my state of Tasmania. I'm pleased to see that Victoria is finally getting one, but Victoria is not the only state in this country. Where's Queensland? Where's New South Wales? Where's Western Australia? Where's South Australia?
This government is failing this country by not having a national quarantine program. Hotels are okay for tourists, but they're not good for quarantine. They are a transmission risk. There is plenty of evidence now that this is an airborne virus and that people are catching this disease in quarantine. They're overseas, they've withstood the virus overseas, they haven't caught it, they've come home to Australia, they have gone into quarantine and they are catching it in hotels, and this Prime Minister says: 'That's fine. This hotel quarantine system works just fine.' That's what he says. It's an absolute disgrace. It is a complete failure of national leadership by this Prime Minister.
We have 36,000 Australians stuck overseas and we have a tourist PM who's quite happy to gallivant around the United Kingdom, which he says is too dangerous for Australians to go to. But he'll happily go on a pub crawl and have his photo taken on the outskirts of the UK. It's one rule for him and another rule for the rest of Australia. There has been no urgency from this Prime Minister in getting this sorted out. And why would he have urgency when he's alright, Jack? The PM is okay; he can travel in and out on a whim. But Australians can't, because there's no national quarantine system to look after them.
This has to be said: what an absolute disgrace the vaccination program is under this government. We've all seen the advertisement from France. France has a wonderful promotion to get its citizens vaccinated, and we know why we don't have one in this country. It's because there are not enough vaccines. If the government had a promotion saying, 'Get vaccinated,' and people responded to it, they'd be stopped at the door: 'Sorry, we don't have any vaccines for you.' That's why we don't have an effective public information program like the one they are rolling out in France.
This government and this Prime Minister had two jobs this year: get the vaccination rollout sorted out—fail—and get hotel quarantine off the books and get a national quarantine system in place, and that is a massive, big, red F for this Prime Minister.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (10:19): I move:
That the question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Intelligence and Security Joint Committee
Report
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (10:20): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report entitled Report on the review of the relisting of Hizballah's External Security Organisation as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr DREYFUS: by leave—Hezbollah's External Security Organisation has been listed as a terrorist organisation under the Criminal Code since 5 June 2003. It has been relisted in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2015 and in the last parliament on 2 May 2018. On 29 April this year Hezbollah's External Security Organisation was relisted again, and this report marks the completion of the intelligence and security committee's review of that decision. All members of the committee support the relisting of Hezbollah's External Security Organisation as a terrorist organisation because of its record of directly and indirectly engaging in and supporting terrorist acts.
However, as the committee did in June 2018, we are again asking why the government has decided to confine the relisting of Hezbollah only to its external security organisation. In June 2018 the intelligence and security committee recommended that further consideration be given to extending the listing to the military wing of Hezbollah. Regrettably the government does not appear to have given this recommendation such consideration. In this report the committee has gone further than it went in 2018 by calling on the government to give consideration to extending the listing to the entirety of Hezbollah, or, at the very least, to the military wing of the organisation. The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Arab League all list the entirety of Hezbollah, including its military wing, as a terrorist organisation. The overwhelming evidence to the committee has made clear that Hezbollah is a unitary organisation, and it is difficult to see how it can realistically or reasonably be subdivided into separate parts, only one of which constitutes a terrorist organisation.
Let's be clear about who and what Hezbollah is. I have visited the Asociacion Mutual Israelita Argentina, a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires. In 1994 a van loaded with explosives was driven into the building by a suicide bomber, killing 85 people and injuring hundreds more. All of the evidence points to Iran and Hezbollah being behind the bombing. Given that even some representatives of Hezbollah itself have said that it is delusional to draw a distinction between the so-called military and political wings of the organisation, I find it difficult to understand why it should matter what part of Hezbollah carried out this devastating attack against the Jewish community of Buenos Aires.
In 2019 the United Kingdom moved from listing only the military wing of Hezbollah to listing the whole of the organisation. In announcing the decision in the House of Commons on 26 February 2019, the United Kingdom Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, said:
There have long been calls to ban the whole group, with the distinction between the two factions derided as smoke and mirrors. Hezbollah itself has laughed off the suggestion that there is a difference. I have carefully considered the evidence and I am satisfied that they are one and the same, with the entire organisation being linked to terrorism.
… … …
This Government have continued to call on Hezbollah to end its armed status; it has not listened. Indeed, its behaviour has escalated; the distinction between its political and military wings is now untenable. It is right that we act now to proscribe this entire organisation.
Here in Australia, the Morrison government has not followed the clear approach of our key allies, without, it must be said, explaining its position publicly, even at the most general level. This is unsatisfactory, to say the least. I urge the government to read the committee's bipartisan report carefully and take its recommendation seriously. The Australian people deserve no less.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (10:25): by leave—In a bipartisan report, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has unanimously recommended that the government expand the listing of Hezbollah in its entirety as a terrorist organisation. The committee was asked to review the minister's decision to relist Hezbollah's External Security Organisation. The committee found no reason to disallow the legislative instrument, but the committee recommends that the government consider listing the whole organisation in its entirety.
There are five points I'd like to make. First, why is listing an organisation as a terrorist organisation important? Listing such an organisation can act as a deterrent to people who may be tempted to join a terrorist organisation. It can disrupt activity, and it also has a symbolic value, demonstrating Australia rejects the group's terrorist activities. In a prosecution for terrorism offences, the authorities do not have to prove that the organisation is a terrorist organisation. The effect of only partially listing Hezbollah is that if the defence pleads that a terror suspect is involved with other parts of the organisation but not the listed part, it may hamper the authorities in protecting the broader community from acts of terrorism. This is what happened in the case of Ali Haidar. The New South Wales government attempted to have Mr Haidar listed as a high-risk terrorist offender due to his history of violent criminal offences and his support for Hezbollah. The prosecution in this case was unsuccessful, in part because it could only prove Mr Haidar's support of Hezbollah, not that he was a supporter of Hezbollah's ESO, and, as such, could not prove his support of a terrorist organisation.
Second, a compartmentalised Hezbollah is a fiction. Hezbollah itself considers itself to be one organisation. The deputy secretary-general of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, said:
Hezbollah has one single leadership, and its name is the decision-making Shura Council. It manages the political activity, the Jihad activity, the cultural and the social activities… we have one leadership, with one administration.
The head of Hezbollah's parliamentary delegation, Mohamed Raad, said:
The Hezbollah military wing is a lie invented by the Europeans because they feel a need to communicate with us and they want to make a delusional separation between the so-called military and political wings
Third, Australia is now the only country which lists only the Hezbollah External Security Organisation. A range of other countries list Hezbollah in its entirety. Those countries are the Arab League, Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Guatemala, the Gulf Cooperation Council, Honduras, Israel, Japan, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Paraguay, Serbia, Slovenia, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, the United Kingdom and Venezuela. In 2019 the United Kingdom upgraded its listing to list the entirety of Hezbollah. In announcing the decision to list Hezbollah in its entirety, the then UK home secretary, Sajid Javid, said:
There have long been calls to ban the whole group, with the distinction between the two factions derided as smoke and mirrors. Hezbollah itself has laughed off the suggestion that there is a difference. I have carefully considered the evidence and I am satisfied that they are one and the same, with the entire organisation being linked to terrorism.
… … …
This Government have continued to call on Hezbollah to end its armed status; it has not listened. Indeed, its behaviour has escalated; the distinction between its political and military wings is now untenable. It is right that we act now to proscribe this entire organisation.
In response to the tabling of this report in the other place, Mr Javid released a tweet with this to say:
This report is right - the 'political wing' of Hizballah is a false distinction, as is recognised by UK, US, Canada, Germany and others.
Australia are great allies on counterterrorism so I'm sure the Morrison government will consider this carefully.
Fourth, the intervention of the head of ASIO, the Director-General of Security, Mike Burgess, in hearings for this inquiry was highly significant. The director-general told the committee that expanding the current listing of Hezbollah to the whole organisation of Hezbollah would 'not impact ASIO's ability to do its job'. And when the case of Mr Haidar was put to Mr Burgess, he observed, 'I agree with your view on how unhelpful the partial listing is for law enforcement.'
The final point I want to make is in relation to relations with Lebanon. The Australian Lebanese community have made a vital contribution to this nation. I am proud of the century old, significant Lebanese diaspora in my electorate. It's hard to think of an area of Australian life which has not been enriched by the Lebanese community. I know people in the Lebanese community are concerned about speaking up against Hezbollah, because it forms part of the Lebanese government and they fear reprisals against family in Lebanon. The Lebanese government has many problems, as we saw in the wake of last year's explosion in Beirut. Hezbollah is not a force for good in their government. Australia's relationship with Hezbollah is important, but as even a cursory examination of the foreign Commonwealth office website will show there's no diminution in the relationship between Lebanon and Britain in a substantial sense as a result of listing the entire organisation of Hezbollah. I encourage our government to give this report serious consideration and follow the example of so many of our allies.
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (10:30): by leave—I've sat on this committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, now for some number of years. I recall and note that the Hezbollah's External Security Organisation wing was originally prescribed in 2003. There have since been six relistings which have required, under the statue, our committee to examine the listing and to make recommendations. I've sat as a member of the committee on five of the considerations of those relistings—for some period of time. I recall when we first looked at this in 2005, and subsequently that this distinction between the external security organisation and Hezbollah more generally seemed to be very artificial. My concern certainly wasn't ameliorated over the considerations of each relisting. I think it's very important, particularly in the Five Eyes, to note that we were the only Five Eyes partner that didn't list the military wing or Hezbollah in its entirety in terms of a terrorist organisation, and I don't think that occurring benefited Australia or Australia's national interest. I also wanted to raise a concern about the fact that in 2018 when the bipartisan committee came to a conclusion and recommended to the government that in the prescription process that it would contemplate listing the military wing we didn't get a response to that—the 2018 report—and that's concerning.
The government relies on this committee a very great deal. When I speak to interlocutors on sister committees in the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere they talk about the great work that this committee has done. For example, when we passed the foreign interference laws, those laws were passed only due to the very diligent work of the committee. The other organisations in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom looked at what we've done, our work, very closely.
So my point to the government is, particularly when we are recommending something of this substance and this weight, that the government gives appropriate consideration to this recommendation and reports back to the committee. I think that's very important. The other thing to stipulate here is that for those who might feel that they've been singled out, particularly in the Lebanese Shia population, that is not the case. For the committee itself—and I speak for the committee—there were many, many, many hours of deliberation. We stand here and we present the report. As the member for Isaacs and the shadow Attorney-General who is sitting here listening to my contribution would acknowledge, many hours of consideration are given to listings of this nature. Consideration is absolutely given to those who might be impacted by these recommendations. These recommendations made by the committee are never made lightly and they take every factor into concern, every factor into consideration, as we've done when we've listed the PKK. I wanted to give that reassurance, that this is something that the committee has given great consideration to, has not done lightly, but inevitably have come to a conclusion that that fig leaf of an external security organisation not being inextricably linked to Hezbollah is just a fiction. It can't be maintained. I also say, particularly, that Sajid Javid—as the member for Berowra pointed out—mentioned in a tweet today:
This report is right—the 'political wing' of Hizballah is a false distinction, as is recognised by UK, US, Canada, Germany and others—
including the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council. I think Javid also has an important point here:
Australia are great allies on counterterrorism so I'm sure the Morrison government will consider this carefully.
In closing, I would urge the government to consider this recommendation carefully. Our fight against those who would cause us harm is enduring, but we fight collectively along with our Five Eyes partners. I think, in terms of this recommendation, that it syncs us in with the rest of the Five Eyes community. And, in our struggle as countries and democracies that have shared values and principles, this is another tool which, as I said, syncs us in with that global fight against terrorism and the damage that those who propagate terrorism seek to do to democracies. This recommendation is in the national interest.
I commend the members of our committee. It is not an easy thing to come to a conclusion, in a lot of circumstances, on a unanimous, bipartisan report, and the recommendation that has been made in this case is not an easy recommendation. I pay tribute to the chair, Senator James Paterson, and also to my friend and colleague the member for Isaacs and shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. His tireless work for us on this committee adds to our committee; it makes the committee a better committee. I certainly thank him for his excellent work on this particular recommendation. I commend this report to the House.
BILLS
Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House recognises that Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis has been hurt by the Government's failure to:
(1) roll out the vaccine;
(2) deliver an effective national quarantine system; and
(3) promote wage growth"—
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (10:37): I thank all those members who have spoken and contributed to this important debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response) Bill 2021. Schedule 1 to the bill extends the existing power in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 that allows the Treasurer to declare eligible state and territory COVID-19 business support grant program payments free from income tax. This amendment will ensure that payments made under eligible programs can also be free from income tax when they're received in the 2021-22 income year. All states and territories are able to apply for this tax treatment where they have eligible grant programs focused on supporting small and medium-sized businesses facing the exceptional circumstances related to COVID-19. Schedule 2 to the bill amends the tax secrecy provisions in the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to allow the ATO to share protected taxpayer information with Services Australia to assist Services Australia with administering the COVID-19 disaster payment and to minimise the number of ineligible applicants receiving payments. This amendment will help ensure that only those eligible for COVID-19 disaster recovery payments actually receive them. 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 Whitlam has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question before the House is that the amendment moved by the member for Whitlam be disagreed to.
The House divided. [10:43]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (10:49): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Commonwealth government's abject failure to deliver durable reform to protect the environment and create jobs"—
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (10:51): The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act is one of Australia's most important environmental laws. This legislation was established to protect the environment, not to make it easier to destroy it. But unfortunately that is what the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 will do if it is passed. This bill seeks to establish a framework for making, varying or revoking an application of the national environmental standards. It also establishes an environmental assurance commissioner to undertake auditing and monitoring of the operation of bilateral agreements with states and territories and a process for making and enforcing approval decisions. All of that sounds good. But, like a lot of things associated with the Morrison government, particularly when it comes to environmental protection, the devil is in the detail. This bill, like many environmental bills that are introduced by this government, is very Orwellian in its language because, in effect, what it does is it actually undermines the sanctity and the importance of this particular piece of legislation in protecting the environment in the future.
This is a piece of legislation that has recently been independently reviewed. The act has undergone its second statutory 10-yearly review, and that review was conducted by Professor Graeme Samuel. The report was handed to the minister in October 2020 and released to the public in late 2021. The final report that Professor Samuel handed to the government painted a picture of an environmental system, an ecosystem or a natural environment in Australia that is under enormous stress. Australia has a record that we as a nation don't want to have, and that is the highest number of mammal extinctions of any nation in the world. A number of protected species are under enormous threat under our watch, as members of this parliament. The effects of climate change are increasing exponentially year on year on year and causing more and more damage to our environment. We will never forget the bushfires of 18 months ago that cut a swathe across landscapes throughout Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland, in particular, but also Western Australia and, of course, resulted in cities being blanketed in unprecedented amounts of thick smoke for up to months at a time. In his final report, Professor Samuel pointed out that the current EPBC Act 'is ineffective' in that:
It does not enable the Commonwealth to protect and conserve environmental matters that are important for the nation. It is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges.
The report made 38 recommendations to improve Australia's stock of environmental protective legislation, particularly noting the importance of having an agreed and established set of national environmental standards through which prospective projects can be assessed to ensure that we're protecting and maintaining the stock of natural heritage that we have throughout this country and, importantly, that we're consulting with and liaising with First Australians about their views on environmental protection. Let's face it: you don't exist on a continent for 60,000 to 70,000 years unless you're doing something right around protecting the environment, learning to live within that environment and then surviving and thriving. That is of course what our First Nations Australians have been able to do.
Importantly, Professor Samuel recommended a number of interim national standards. This particular legislation gives the minister power to make national environmental standards. The bill doesn't include that set of proposed standards but a framework for them to be implemented. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states that the national standard will be an interim standard until it has undergone its first review, and that will be within a two-year period. The Samuel review included a proposal for a set of interim national standards. These interim national standards were the result of extensive consultation over a period of almost 12 months. It was a consultation with stakeholders in putting these interim national standards together. So here we have the independent reviewer consulting with all parties throughout the country and coming up with a set of interim national standards. Do you think that the government has adopted those standards? Of course not—no, they haven't!
They've developed their own national environmental standards. This is why Australians should be worried and this is why I said at the beginning that the devil is in the detail with this government. Those standards that the government is proposing are vastly different to those which were recommended by Professor Samuel. How do we know this? The government's standards haven't been released publicly, but they have been leaked. They were leaked by someone in the government because they weren't happy with the way that this was headed and what it would mean for environmental protection in Australia.
We know that those leaked standards fall well short of the Samuel version. They're materially the same as draft standards that were prepared in 2014 under the Abbott government, when they were trying to water down the EPBC Act and to introduce a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals so that we didn't have that two-step process of the states and territories and the Commonwealth looking at a proposed project and ensuring that it met all of the necessary environmental standards. So this government is trying to go back to what they proposed in 2014—which, thankfully, was rejected by the parliament at the time—to ensure that they're watering down what was proposed by Professor Samuel. The standards in the Samuel review are more detailed and considerably more protective than the standards proposed by the Morrison government. Samuel also proposed separate and detailed standards relating to Indigenous engagement and participation, compliance and enforcement of data and information. Again, that hasn't been included to the same extent in the government's proposals.
The other point to make about these standards is that they'll be a legislative instrument, but that the first set of them that will be made will not be disallowable. So once this first set are made it's likely that they'll be in place for two years before they become a disallowable instrument and the parliament can have another look at them to see whether or not they're adequate. So, in effect, the government is proposing to have a set of standards that are inferior to what was proposed by Professor Samuel, for the next two years, to ensure that we're not meeting the standard that was set by the independent reviewer.
This new bill will also allow the minister to make a decision that is inconsistent with the national environmental standards where the minister considers it in the public interest, and we all know what that means. We know that means the government will try and undermine those national standards and undermine the protection and conservation of natural environments here in Australia with a view to fast-tracking proposals that ordinarily might not meet the national standards and get approval.
The second element of this bill which is of concern is in relation to the assurance commissioner. This bill establishes an independent statutory position for an environmental assurance commissioner, and the functions are set out in section 501C of the act. They basically relate to monitoring and auditing through a number of agreements, but, in particular, the concern is with the function that the Environmental Assurance Commissioner will have in respect of the monitoring and auditing of the operation of bilateral agreements. These are the agreements between the states and the Commonwealth to streamline the process of environmental approvals. The concern here is that the assurance commissioner will actually be toothless when it comes to ensuring that the national environmental standards are adhered to. Conservation stakeholders are being critical of the bill's model because of the inability for the proposed commissioner to investigate individual decisions relating to projects, and they've labelled it, effectively, as toothless. When the minister introduced this bill the minister was quite specific when she said:
The Environment Assurance Commissioner will not have a role in monitoring or auditing individual decisions.
So the notion of having a tough cop on the beat to police the enforcement of those national environmental standards is completely undermined by this government's own bill—again, there's that great use of Orwellian language of doing the opposite of what the bill actually says it's going to do. It's on that basis that we have deep concerns about this and, indeed, many Australians, particularly those that work in the conservation space, have deep concerns about this.
As I mentioned at the beginning, Australia is a nation that is under enormous pressure when it comes to conserving our natural environment, particularly given the effects of climate change. We've got an unenviable record of having the largest rate of mammal extinctions of any nation in the world. The only way we're going to turn around such a record and protect the numerous species that are going onto that threatened species list on an annual basis and ensure that the Great Barrier Reef survives into the future is if we have a decent set of national environmental standards that are complied with and that are policed by appropriately resourced and empowered organisations. That will ensure we uphold those principles in this act and do what we say with our environmental laws and protect and conserve our natural environment. This legislation should be established to protect the environment, not make it easier to destroy it, but, unfortunately, if this act is passed, that is exactly what it will do.
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (11:04): The EPBC Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, is undoubtedly one of the most important pieces of conservation legislation we have here in Australia. Members here would be familiar with some of the objectives of the act: to provide for the protection of the environment, especially on matters of national environmental significance; to conserve Australian biodiversity; to provide a streamlined national environmental assessment and approvals process; to enhance the protection and management of important natural and cultural places; to control the international movements of plants and animals, including wildlife and wildlife specimens and products made or derived from wildlife under conventions such as CITES; to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of resources; to recognise the role of Indigenous people in the conservation and sustainable use of Australia's biodiversity; and to promote the use of Indigenous peoples' knowledge of biodiversity, with the involvement of and in cooperation with the owners of that knowledge. There are a number of matters of national significance that come under the EPBC Act: World Heritage properties, National Heritage places, wetlands of international importance, Commonwealth marine areas, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park—the subject of some news coverage in recent days—and listed threatened species and ecological communities.
This landmark piece of legislation, which has done a huge amount in its somewhat over two decades of existence to protect and preserve our environment, is now 20 years old. Under the terms of the act itself, under section 522A, a review is required every 10 years to examine the operation of the EPBC Act and the extent to which its objects have been met. A 10-year review was conducted in 2009—by Dr Allan Hawke, from memory—and the legislation that we're discussing and debating today, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021, is the result, the fruit of the second such review.
This second statutory review commenced on 29 October 2019. It was led by Professor Graeme Samuel, who was appointed as the independent reviewer. He was supported in this by an expert panel, which provided advice to Professor Samuel on a number of specific issues. Professor Samuel, as a result of his first round of consultations, published a discussion paper in November 2019, to which submissions were invited, and, in fact, a huge number of submissions were received. There were over 3,242 unique submissions and a larger number of replica submissions, which indicates the wide range of public interest in this topic. As members would be aware, Professor Samuel delivered his interim report in July of last year, and his final report was released on 28 January this year. Before proceeding further in discussion of the substance of this legislation we're debating here today, I do wish to put on my record my appreciation and commendation for Professor Samuel, and for the expert panel who advised him throughout this, on an important piece of work.
Undoubtedly, Australia's environment, with the variety and uniqueness of our natural assets, is one of our great national blessings. We are blessed with some of the most remarkable and amazing species in the world, many of which are unique to Australia. We have some of the most amazing sites of natural beauty in the world—places such as Kakadu National Park, the Great Barrier Reef, the alpine ranges, the Daintree rainforest and the Franklin-Gordon Wild Rivers National Park, to name just a few. We also have one of the largest and most significant marine jurisdictions in the world, which hosts many forms of life about which we still know very little. Our natural environment is central to our conception of ourselves as a people and as a nation, just as it was to our Indigenous Australians during the tens of thousands of years they inhabited the continent before white settlement. And whilst it's central to our own self-conception, it's also a key part of how the world sees Australia: as a continent of phenomenal natural beauty and striking ecological diversity, home to a disproportionate share of the world's marvels.
This is why this review is so important. Professor Samuel, in this review, made a number of quite profound and quite concerning findings, and I think it's worth quoting from elements of the final review he has handed down. Professor Samuel's overall finding was:
Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. They are not sufficiently resilient to withstand current, emerging or future threats, including climate change.
Professor Samuel also found:
The EPBC Act is out dated and requires fundamental reform. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively fulfil its environmental management responsibilities to protect nationally important matters. The Act, and the way it is implemented, results in piecemeal decisions, which rarely work in concert with the environmental management responsibilities of the States and Territories. The Act is a barrier to holistic environmental management which, given the nature of Australia's federation, is essential for success.
And finally:
The EPBC Act requires fundamental reform, and a sensible and staged pathway of change is needed to achieve this.
… … …
New National Environmental Standards should be the centrepiece of fundamental reform of national environmental law
The standards and assurance part of the EPBC Act is the subject matter of the bill and the legislation we're discussing today.
Professor Samuel, in his review, recommended that national environmental standards should be made in early 2021 supported by reforms to implement an independent environment assurance commissioner; expert advisory committees; transparent decision-making; access to data and information; strong, independent compliance and enforcement; effective monitoring and evaluation; access to justice; and exploring investment in this duration. Comprehensive enabling reform should be completed within 12 months, according to Professor Samuel's recommendation, and a full overhaul of the EPBC Act should be completed during 2022. These are the recommendations we are dealing with today from the Professor Samuel review.
As part of his review, Professor Samuel recommended that national environmental standards should be the centrepiece and should be the first stage of the reform. Together, leaders at the state and territory level, meeting through the national cabinet, have agreed that the immediate priority of reform is to implement single-touch environmental approvals underpinned by national environmental standards that reflect the current requirements of the EPBC Act. In August last year, the government introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020 into the parliament. The purpose of that piece of legislation was to ensure that bilateral agreements and the accreditation of state authorisation processes which give effect to single-touch approvals are legally robust and durable. The bill we are debating today is really the second stage in implementing the first wave, if you like, of Professor Samuel's reforms. This particular bill, the standards and assurance bill, together with the streamlining bill that has already passed the House, represent the initial stage of this reform process.
It has always been the intention of the government that bilateral agreements with the states and territories be underpinned by strong national environmental standards developed by the Commonwealth. The bill delivers on this commitment by establishing a framework to develop legally enforceable national environmental standards. This bill, the standards and assurance bill, will ensure that approved bilateral agreements with states and territories are underpinned by strong national environmental standards, are supported by strong assurance and contain strong oversight mechanisms. What national environmental standards will do is set the requirements for decision-making to deliver outcomes for the environment and heritage and ensure that Commonwealth requirements and obligations for environmental approval and other decisions are upheld regardless of which jurisdiction makes the approval decision.
The Samuel review also identified the need for strong independent oversight of environmental assessment and approval systems, including the accredited state and territory systems, to provide confidence that the outcomes of the environmental standards are being achieved and the requirements of the EPBC Act are being upheld. This bill does both of things. Firstly, it establishes a framework for the making, varying, revoking and application of national environmental standards. These standards will be allowed to be made by the minister. These standards will underpin accredited environmental assessment and approval processes under bilateral agreements agreed with the states and territories. The accreditation of state and territory assessment and approval processes will be contingent on those processes not being inconsistent with the national environmental standards.
These standards will be established as a legislative instrument, which means that they have the necessary flexibility for the standards to respond to new information and changing circumstances but they're subject to the same protections that are inherent in legislative instruments, including consultation requirements. It is anticipated that the national environmental standards will be developed in consultation with science, Indigenous, environmental and business stakeholders as well as, of course, with the states and territories.
These interim standards initially will be required to be reviewed within two years to ensure the right balance is being struck. States and territories that wish to be accredited under the EPBC Act to make approval decisions—this is for the single-touch approval envisaged and sought by the states and territories—will need to demonstrate that the systems that they put in place can support and uphold these national environmental standards. What this means is that bilateral agreements between the federal government and state and territory governments, underpinned by these national environmental standards, will harmonise environmental approval requirements across all jurisdictions. We won't have the situation that we have now where we have different states and territories taking different decisions which lead to different protection outcomes for our environment. It will also remove the considerable duplication that currently exists between state and federal approval processes.
Professor Samuel, in his review, also recommended that a government should retain the ability to exercise discretion in individual cases. The bill provides for this but makes sure that discretion can only be exercised very sparingly. I think that is an important point. Any decisions that the minister makes to deviate from these standards will require that the minister publish a statement setting out the reasons why the minister was satisfied that the decision taken was in the public interest, and the statement must be published on the department's website as soon as practicable after the decision is made.
The bill also ensures that our approval systems, including under the EPBC Act, will be supported by strong oversight and assurance. It does this by establishing the Environment Assurance Commissioner as an independent statutory office holder within the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. This is consistent with the Samuel review recommendation which identified the need for strong and independent oversight of environmental assessment and approval systems, to provide confidence that the national environmental standards are being achieved and that the requirements of the EPBC Act are being upheld.
The Environment Assurance Commissioner will provide strong, rigorous and independent assurance that approval systems are working well and are delivering outcomes for the environment, for business and for the community. The bill goes into some detail to specify the arrangements governing the commissioner's appointment and the exercise of the commissioner's functions and powers, including the preparation of annual work plans and reporting requirements. The establishment of the Environment Assurance Commissioner, together with national environmental standards, will give stakeholders and the community confidence in the single-touch approval system. It should make decision-making faster and easier but provide a higher level of protection for our environment.
I noticed that the member opposite, the member for Hunter—I know we quote him quite often in this place—did have something quite interesting to say on this in an opinion piece published in the Daily Telegraph on 21 June:
Jobs versus environment: it's not a new battle. One or the other it need not be, we can protect our natural environment and create jobs too.
It's a sentiment with which I certainly agree. I think the member for Hunter was arguing for the passage of this legislation in that opinion piece.
This bill, together with the streamlining bill considered and passed by the House earlier, is the first step on an important journey of implementing the Samuel review, of ensuring the EPBC Act remains fit for purpose and of ensuring that robust environmental standards apply across all jurisdictions. The standards and assurance bill, together with the associated streamlining bill, will establish the framework and the architecture to modernise the EPBC Act, to remove unnecessary duplication and red and green tape, to improve efficiency for business in having their projects assessed, to provide greater certainty for the community and to deliver, most importantly, better environmental outcomes.
There are other elements of the Samuel review which will be canvassed and addressed at a later stage; that is my understanding. The government has recently, in June 2021, published a pathway for reforming national environmental law, which lays out four stages that mirror the stages recommended by Professor Samuel. Stage 1 is the national environmental standards in the state and territory agreements to allow for single-touch approvals. But subsequent stages deal with things such as: the respectful inclusion of Indigenous Australians' knowledge and views in decision-making; the full transparency of decision-making; independent auditing of decisions; appropriate legal review and access to justice; and strong and independent compliance and enforcement. As outlined in the government's own pathway for reforming national environmental law, once the bills are passed—the streamlining bill and the national environmental standards bill—we will move on to the second stage of reforms, which will include things such as additional national environmental standards, including for areas such as Indigenous engagement.
In the time remaining to me, I note that the passage of this legislation has widespread support from the states and territories. Indeed, the Western Australian Premier, Mark McGowan, with whom the federal government does not always agree or see eye to eye, was in the media today urging the passage of this legislation. I have a copy of a letter here that was provided to me, which has been sent to the Leader of the Opposition from bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Western Australia, urging that Labor support the passage of this legislation. I urge those opposite to consider this legislation favourably, and I commend to it the House.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:19): I have been on chamber duty listening to a few of the contributions of government members. I have to say: you can't disagree with the majority of them, because they faithfully recite all the stuff the Samuel report has said predominantly. The fundamental problem—this is why this is so disappointing—in looking at the detail of this legislation, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021, is that it doesn't properly respond to what was in the Samuel report. When you look at the government's whole package of responses, such as they are today, they do not implement what's in the Samuel report. It is kind of word association.
I will say at the outset—I will make a few introductory remarks—that this is a critically important law. The EPBC Act is meant to be the national law which protects and enhances the environment and which regulates development or changes in nationally significant environmental places through the environmental assessment process. Three stages are: referring things to the Commonwealth minister to decide if a formal assessment is needed; if so, then a formal assessment based on the act and the regulations and then approval—in theory approval or rejection, or approval with conditions more often than not
I was a bit of a sceptic about the Samuel review. It was probably last year that I actually picked it up and spent a bit of time reading it. I was a healthy sceptic I suppose when you look at what I perceive to be this government and the Liberal Party's record on environmental protection. We hear the same rhetoric over and over again, that it doesn't have to be a trade-off between the economy and the environment. The previous speaker quoted the member for Hunter. I agree with the member for Hunter's sentiments. It's hard to disagree with that. You do need to find ways to do both. It's called sustainable development. It's not a new concept. The problem is when you actually look at what the government does too often they don't protect the environment. They only take one part of the equation. So I was a sceptic when I looked at the report. But I compliment Graeme Samuel on this work. It is a really robust bit of work. It's persuasive and it's convincing, in my view, and, indeed, it's sometimes challenging given the Labor Party's long-standing concern around large-scale devolution of decision-making powers to states and territories. It sets up what I think personally—this is not necessarily party policy—is a pretty compelling framework, which we've said we're open to considering in its entirety.
The review was pretty damning on the performance of the EPBC Act. It said it's ineffective, it needs fundamental reform, it's not fit to address current or future environmental challenges. There's no community trust, there's no trust from traditional owners across the country in the act and overall—my words—it's obsessed with process, not with actual environmental outcomes. That was a key takeout right through the report. It said that there's also no evidence that the environment actually gets any better with the administration of this act, particularly after eight years of this government. The report states:
The EPBC Act does not facilitate the maintenance or restoration of the environment. The current settings cannot halt the trajectory of environmental decline—
let alone reverse it.
That government's response has been lacklustre—lacklustre is an understatement. There was an interim report which broadly recommended two things: national environmental standards and an independent environmental regulator. The government's response was to say: 'We will do some national environmental standards. We'll reject the independent environmental regulator and we'll just charge ahead regardless with delegating decision-making powers to the states and territories,' so on they marched. The companion to this, if you like, the flawed bill, is still stuck in the Senate where I hope it will die, because what these two bills do together—they're linked to the Samuel review. The government's pretending they're implementing the Samuel review but they're really just resurrecting Tony Abbott's failed one-stop-shop approach, which was an agenda to weaken environmental protection. Then, regardless, the government was kind of doing its thing over there, which they were always going to do anyway it seems.
The final report had 38 recommendations proposing reform in three tranches. Importantly, there was a warning. It should have come with big red letters. It should have had its own page. It was pretty clear language:
Governments should avoid the temptation to cherry pick from a highly interconnected suite of recommendations.
That was a key warning in the Samuel reviews report. 'Do not cherrypick and just pick the bits you like, because it won't actually implement reform the improve environmental outcomes.' The four key components, as I would describe them, included national environmental standards that have to be legally enforceable, binding, focused on outcomes and actually requiring and generating improvements to environmental outcomes, not just more paperwork and process. This bill, shamefully, is on track to implement weak standards, even weaker than were proposed in the Samuel review, as the draft standards—which was illustrative. They weren't meant to be the things adopted, but if they get this legislation through the government's going to try to implement the same weak standards as Tony Abbott proposed in 2014.
The second aspect to accredit states and territories for decisions with safeguards, as the Samuel review said, would include formal independent checks and an accreditation process, not just a delegation process—a really important difference—and it would be subject to parliamentary disallowance, so really tough scrutiny from both houses of the Commonwealth parliament on any decisions or delegated decision-making framework given to the states and territories. That's really important. This stuff is really risky for the Commonwealth parliament to give away. I've heard some of the other contributions to this debate, but I believe the Australian people do expect the Australian government and the parliament to actually take responsibility for matters of national environmental significance, not just to say, 'We're a federation and we'll just delegate all of that to the states and territories, not worry about the outcomes and not keep an eye on what they're doing.' I think this is really important.
I understand the pressures. I think the report talks about the pressures, and many stakeholder submissions bagging and opposing this bill talk very clearly about the different pressures that state and territory governments are quite rightly under. They have a more direct responsibility for economic development and a more direct set of stakeholders, frankly—planners and developers and the like—pushing for approvals. I used to work in both the state planning department and the state environmental department in Victoria, and we dealt with these things. I fully agree with the criticisms that Professor Samuel made. It is an act, in the way it's regulated downstream, that is obsessed with pieces of paper, process and procedure, not with actually looking at outcomes. But those pressures on state and territory governments are immense, and they're not things that the Commonwealth feels day to day. It's a really important reason for the parliament to understand that we should not be rushing to give away decision-making powers to states and territories without making sure that all the other bits of the equation are right: a tough cop on the beat, tough environmental standards and tough oversight of the whole system.
Importantly, No. 3, the Commonwealth environment minister has to retain the intervention power and responsibility for national environmental outcomes. Fourthly, strong audit and oversight through an Environmental Assurance Commissioner will give us confidence that decision-makers—states, territories, whoever—are adhering to standard and bilateral accreditation arrangements. It was an integrated package of reform. I'll say again: the warning that came with this set of proposals was, 'Do not cherrypick.' You can't choose just the bits you like and that you developer mates that the government may be listening to say are necessary. It's shocking that there's still no comprehensive response to the 38 recommendations. The government's rushed ahead now with two bits of legislation, but they still haven't actually responded to the 38 recommendations that were in the Samuel review. The government's legislation is not consistent with the Samuel review. As I said, as other members have said and as submitters have said, they're dredging up the Abbott government's old proposals which died in the Senate. They were weak and, importantly, things like the environmental standards that are being proposed are not disallowable. If this bill passed and the government got their way, they'll put in place these weak environmental standards that will be there for at least two years and that the parliament can't disallow, and then they'll say to the states and territories, 'Off you go,' with no independent oversight that's actually tough enough to keep an eye on what they're doing. It's a really dangerous recipe. I think that, if the public really understood the detail here, there would be no community support for this.
The shadow minister's rightly said that Labor's open-minded. We will consider real implementation of the Samuel review and, as I said, there are aspects of that which are challenging for some of us on this side of the House. That's a conversation we're prepared to have if it's done as a package, not as a cherrypicked set of little bits that the government happens to like. We need tough national standards, a tough cop on the beat. The government's proposal has no real powers, no real teeth. It has just an audit review function, but no ability to scrutinise or examine individual decisions. As some members have pointed out, I'd say that, importantly, a big part of any serious set of reforms has to be to fix the capability and capacity of the Commonwealth environment department. Graeme Samuel was clear that the Commonwealth minister has to retain, even if the government got its way, the ability to intervene, and that means the Commonwealth environment department has to lift its game massively on its ability to process referrals and maintain that professional capability. Only then could Australia consider, in my view, large-scale devolution of these decision-making powers to the states and territories.
The only way to describe the action of the Commonwealth environment department is eight years of neglect, cuts and disasters. Now we see the hypocrisy of the government claiming with a straight face, as some government members have tried to do: 'We need these reforms because decisions are too slow. Industry is telling us that decisions are too slow in the Commonwealth environment department—green tape.' Well, it's their failures, their delays and their decisions. They've been in government for eight years. It's their failure to make these decisions, which are, in many cases, as people quite rightly point out, leading to delays in jobs and investments being made.
But it should be no surprise; when the government came to office eight long years ago they cut 40 per cent of the funding from the Commonwealth environment department, they cut thousands of the public servants from that department, including the many who are supposed to make these decisions, and then they scream, 'Shock! Horror! The decisions are taking longer.'
I just want to make a couple of remarks about the recent Australian National Audit Office report. It's shocking. I'm the deputy chair of the audit committee, I do look through just about all the audit reports which the Auditor-General tables, and this is a shocker. You can hardly find a single positive or even slightly nice sentence in the report. The frustration of the Auditor-General shone through—95 per cent of decisions are made late or outside the statutory time frame and 79 per cent are noncompliant or affected by error. In 2013, when the government was elected, on average decisions were made about 19 days late. It was 19 days when Labor left office. Now, on average, it's 106 days late, and somehow, therefore, the answer is: 'Oh well. We give up. We'll give it all to the states and territories with weak standards.' That's not good enough. Even under this package, we have to be assured that the Commonwealth department has the capability and the capacity to make these decisions and make them in a timely way, because that's what the public expect.
I might just read a couple of bits of the audit report while I'm at it. I'll just draw a contention. I'll quote from the Auditor-General:
Despite being subject to multiple reviews, audits and parliamentary inquiries since the commencement of the Act, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment's administration of referrals, assessments and approvals of controlled actions under the EPBC Act is not effective.
… … …
Referrals and assessments are not administered effectively or efficiently. Regulation is not supported by appropriate systems and processes, including an appropriate quality assurance framework.
… … …
The department is unable to demonstrate that conditions of approval are appropriate. The implementation of conditions is not assessed with rigour.
… … …
The department does not have an appropriate strategy to manage its compliance intelligence—
It's not good.
Conflicts of interest are not managed.
This is a good one. This is a good trick the government does when their performance is falling off a cliff. They actually just take out the performance measures. They just cancel them! It's like vaccines: 'It's off-track, so we'll just stop the targets. We'll just give up. We don't have any aim anymore. We're just going to bumble along and do what we can and hope for the best.' The Auditor-General said:
All relevant performance measures in the department's corporate plan were removed in 2019-20, and no internal performance measures relating to effectiveness or efficiency have been established.
… … …
Systems and processes for referrals and assessments do not fully support the achievement of requirements under the EPBC Act.
That is, they're not properly complying with the law! Proxy indicators—the ANAO went and developed their own indicators, and back applied them with the data, and said: Actually 'the efficiency of referrals and assessments has not improved over recent years.' As I said, everything is just running late. It's no surprise, it is? When you cut 40 per cent of funding from the environment department that things slow down. Who knew!
In summary, the government has tacitly acknowledged the enormous mess that they've created, because last year they gave the environment department $25 million. It was a big announcement, 'Oh, look! We're going to give the department some money to clear the backlog that we created because we cut the budget.' What a brilliant set of geniuses! As the Audit Office said to me though, 'From our perspective, that just looks like they're at great risk of hurrying up their mistakes and making more bad decisions quickly with that $25 million, because they haven't actually made any of the fundamental changes.' So, in summary, I think it's a terrible situation.
The act doesn't protect or enhance the environment—it's obsessed by process. I think we can all agree on that. The government's made a total mess of the process, as the Auditor-General said, and has to actually fix the department's capability—but whether or not they do this! But the report that charts a credible way forward is being ignored by the government, who are pretending to implement it but just dragging out Tony Abbott's failed proposals, which would see environmental degradation continue and probably accelerate.
As many speakers have said, this should not be a choice between the environment or the economy. We should be able to have both; it's called sustainable development. I call on the government to withdraw this bill and sit down and actually come up with some legislation that implements their own review. If they did that, I'd be confident that it would meet with broad support.
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (11:34): I too rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. In doing so I will say there's one thing that this bill does absolutely: it cements this government's abysmal record on environmental protection. We've seen 22 policies in eight years and we've seen a divided government—even more divided in the last few days, with a Deputy Prime Minister who is absolutely resolute in not changing anything to do with the environment or climate and a Prime Minister who perhaps has a 'preference' to look at some action on the climate and the environment. There's an inability to commit to any clear, firm targets, and that's what this policy does: it cements the government's position on their inability to protect the environment.
It's no wonder that Australians and Australia have become laughing-stocks on the world stage when it comes to the environment. Just recently, at the G7 meeting last week or the week before, we saw Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister of Britain, praising the Prime Minister for committing to net zero 2050—that was in Boris Johnson's words. It was the journalists who pulled him up at that point and corrected the British Prime Minister by saying that Australia's target is not a commitment; it's a preference. The Prime Minister has said it's 'preferable' by 2050.
What does 'preferable' even mean? What is preferable? When you go to a restaurant, perhaps you prefer pasta over a salad, and if you don't get the pasta you shrug your shoulders and say, 'Okay, well, I'll have the salad.' But when it comes to environmental protection, when it comes to protection of the climate and climate change, and to protecting our biodiversity so that our children and grandchildren, the next generation of Australians, can live in a healthy world, it's not a question of preference. It's a question of action and it's a question of priority. We have a duty, as legislators, to hand over a healthy environment and climate that the next generation can live in.
So it's a question of actions and clear targets—targets that will deliver. But this government is just not delivering. For example, just yesterday UNESCO recommended that the Great Barrier Reef should be placed on the list of World Heritage sites that are endangered. This is our Barrier Reef—our iconic environmental reef, one of the largest in the world. UN officials are urging Australia to take accelerated action at all possible levels on climate change. All experts have warned that ongoing inaction on climate change and lack of environmental protection could cause irreversible damage to our reef. When we have UNESCO saying that it's endangered then something terribly wrong is going on. And yet the Minister for the Environment here in this place insists that the Great Barrier Reef is the best-managed reef in the world. How can that be? How can that be when we have UNESCO recommending that the Barrier Reef be placed on the list of World Heritage sites that are endangered? They didn't say that it was in good condition or that it should be put up on a pedestal as a model; they said that it's one of the heritage sites that are in danger.
This is just another example of the government having a preference—it prefers its version over that of experts. We've seen that quite a bit over the years. When we look at this government, it's actually very sad. It has one of the poorest records when it comes to the environment. Unfortunately, this bill is just another example of this fact. It's one more example of the poor record of this government. The 10-year review of the EPBC Act was an opportunity. It was regarded as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to strengthen our environmental laws and to make them more effective so that we can hand over a healthy environment to the next generation—to our children and our grandchildren. But that is not the case.
This review was conducted by a very well-respected professor, Professor Graeme Samuel, who didn't hold back in his report and in his scathing assessment of the current act. Graeme Samuel's final report states that 'the EPBC Act is ineffective' because 'it does not enable the Commonwealth to protect environmental matters that are important for the nation'—as a nation—and that 'it is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges'. He also said that, unless the government implemented the fundamental reforms that were recommended by the review, it will contribute to:
… the continued decline of our iconic places and the extinction of our most threatened plants, animals and ecosystems.
Including the Barrier Reef. But it's clear that this government once again prefers not to listen to the experts, because its response to the review, judging by this bill, is nothing short of disappointing.
This bill is the second of proposed legislation to be considered alongside the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Streamlining Environmental Approvals) Bill 2020. That bill is commonly known as the Abbott 2.0 bill, because it effectively replaces the former Abbott government's failed one-stop-shop policy from 2014. It just replaces it. We on this side of the House opposed the Abbott 2.0 bill, which was introduced into this parliament in 2020. As I said, it was referred to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. Labor senators, in their dissenting report, found that the standards in this bill will do nothing other than duplicate existing obligations.
We've been calling for a genuinely independent cop on the beat for the environment. This is absolutely necessary. You need a cop on the beat with teeth. It is necessary if we're serious about protecting our environment and restoring the Australian public's trust in the EPBC Act. Australians need to be able to trust their national government to preserve our precious natural environment. They also need to trust that there won't be unnecessary delays in environmental decision-making that in turn lead to delays in jobs and investments—and have we seen delays! In these eight or nine years of the Morrison government we have seen no decisions and delay after delay, costing us jobs and investment. That's what we have seen from this Morrison government—repeated cuts to the environment department and to resourcing. This has led to unnecessary delays in decision-making and a greater chance of errors occurring.
We're calling for legislation that will offer stronger environmental protections to address the overall state of decline of and increasing threat to the environment. There is a decline, as has been said over and over again by UNESCO and other bodies and as we saw with the Great Barrier Reef. We need to establish a tough cop on the beat to help restore that trust. We need legislation that supports efficient and effective decision-making under the EPBC Act in the interests of avoiding unnecessary delays to jobs and investments.
In his final report, Graeme Samuel included a set of proposed interim national environmental standards which was the product of extensive consultation with stakeholders. But this government has produced its own set of proposed interim national environmental standards. These standards fall well short of the Samuel version. They do nothing more than replicate the act's existing arrangements—like a mirror image—and are materially the same as the draft standards that were prepared back in 2014 in support of the Abbott government's failed bill, which was the one-stop shop. They are no different.
So, after spending millions of dollars—vast amounts of money—and countless hours on the review, this government has delivered second-rate so-called standards that are inconsistent with the Samuel review final report. How can Australians trust this government with our most precious asset—our environment? True to form, the Prime Minister and his ministers refuse to take responsibility for the environment and for their jobs failures. If we had taken action, we could have created jobs as well. Instead of delivering jobs and protecting the environment, this government has focused on spending a billion dollars on marketing itself and on advertising and many other things that really are great on spin and great on announcements but are zilch on the delivery. We've seen this time and time again from this government: they think more about their own jobs. It's about how to be re-elected, not about what's delivered and the benefit for Australia. When you're in this place, when you're in government, you always have to take the view of what's best for the nation, not for the short term but for the long term.
As I said earlier, the environment and climate change are areas where we have an absolute responsibility to take action to ensure that we hand over to the next generation of Australians a healthy environment and a climate that we can live in. Without a climate that is able to sustain us, there'll be no farms and no industry. All we'll have is a dust bowl around the world. We'll all just be extinguished at some point if we don't take action. It's really important. This debate is about the future generations on our earth. Again, this particular bill is about our nation and those iconic environmental places. There has been no action on any of these areas. We support the introduction of strong national environmental standards underpinned by legislation—which this bill doesn't provide—and these standards must ensure that all jurisdictions in Australia comply with the national standards and with our international obligations. This bill doesn't even have any standards in it. It does nothing to protect the environment; it just duplicates what's already in the act. This is not deregulation, and it's not protecting the environment.
The entire point of this bill and this act was to set standards and, unfortunately, the bill is not setting any standards. Without those standards, we on this side of the House simply cannot support this bill. Any proposal needs to have a strong role for the Commonwealth, especially when it comes to matters of national environmental significance, and the Commonwealth must retain the right and the ability to undertake assessments and approval of any matter of national environmental significance. This is crucial. Imagine what would have happened if the decision in respect to logging in the Daintree, drilling on the reef and the Franklin dam had been entirely left to the states. It took Labor, when we were in government in those days federally, to put a stop to this environmental vandalism. Labor is the only party in this House that is serious about protecting our environment. Our national environment is a driver of tens of thousands of jobs and, unfortunately, we've missed that opportunity.
Professor Samuel made it clear in his report that the Commonwealth must continue to have oversight of environmental protection, and I believe that the majority of Australians agree, especially when it comes to sites of national significance. That's why we're insisting on the establishment of an independent compliance watchdog with teeth which is genuinely independent and which will provide ongoing parliamentary scrutiny. I believe that Australians also agree. Australia cannot afford to allow the continued and alarming environmental decline that we have seen under this government.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (11:49): Mr Deputy Speaker, you and some of our colleagues may have seen the movie Back to the Future. Do you remember that great American movie franchise in the eighties, the Back to the Future trilogy, with Marty McFly and Biff Tannen? It was a great set of movies—all those different versions of the future and the past. Well, this bill is a case of back to the future. It's a bit of a theme this week. We've had the return of the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce. What version are we going to get this time?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): I would just caution the member for Wills that he'll refer to members by their appropriate names.
Mr KHALIL: The Deputy Prime Minister—what version are we going to get this time? It's: 'What version of Biff Tannen are we going to get?' It's like when we watched the movies. It's all going to be a bit different, isn't it—slightly different but still somewhat horrifying as you're watching it unfold?
This bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021, is another example of the government's theme of going back to the future, pushing everything way back into the past, if they can, to change the future. It's kind of a minimalist approach, isn't it, Mr Deputy Speaker? This government is pushing responsibility away from the Commonwealth and towards the states and territories. Are we going back to pre-Federation days, with power to the colonies? Is that the theme of this government? Actually, it's fast becoming the signature of this government. Whether it's the vaccine rollout or quarantine, it's about the federal government saying: 'It's not our responsibility. Let's give this to the states and territories.' We've got to wonder why the government keeps abrogating responsibility in so many areas. This bill is another example of this theme, if you like, of abrogation.
There are few areas more important than environmental protection. Ostensibly, much of the bill that has been presented for debate in this place has been driven by the second 10-yearly review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The review was undertaken by Professor Graeme Samuel, and we thank him for that work. In reality, however, this government doesn't want to make the necessary changes that were proposed by the Samuel review. It's worth repeating that, in the report, Professor Samuel found that the 1999 act:
… does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation. It is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges.
Clearly, he found that the legislation, which is more than 20 years old, is no longer fit for purpose and we should look at enhancing environmental protections based on the new evidence and expertise that has developed over the decades. The Samuel review, in its report, put forward a suite of 38 recommendations to improve the legislation. Unfortunately, we're not debating those recommendations, are we, Mr Deputy Speaker? The government—extraordinarily, cynically—has produced its own interim national environmental standards. Whether that's back to the future or back to the past, I'm not quite sure; I'm getting confused myself. But what I'm not confused about, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that the standards fall well short of any of the recommendations put forward by Professor Samuel.
I have established that this government wants to go back to interim standards that are actually as bad as when Tony Abbott was Prime Minister in this place. That's certainly going back to the future. These are the half-baked standards that we're actually debating today—something that was there seven or eight years ago. Fundamentally, the current proposals make no change to the existing flawed regulations. They are really just a reheated serving of former Prime Minister Abbott's failed 2014 one-stop-shop bill. It's interesting that the government will bend over backwards to hide—well, maybe not to hide but to take expert medical advice, as they should—when there are unpopular decisions to be made during a pandemic but suddenly know better when they receive expert environmental protection advice during what is probably the most critical time in our struggle to combat climate change and protect the environment. They know better and they write down their own standards—standards that were there 10 years ago.
I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there are probably a few members here who do not actually believe that climate change is happening or that we're going to see its catastrophic effects in our natural world, and they don't make protecting the environment as high a priority as they should. It's important to note, though, that in the Samuel review it was really made quite clear that decisions be made on the best available information. That sounds pretty good, doesn't it? That sounds like a sound evidence base for your policy development. Yet, the government don't like to source the best available information, because a lot of the time the actual information that's provided to them by the experts, by the scientists, actually is in raging disagreement with what the government want to do and where they're headed and what path they're taking. So, to get around this, the government just water down some of these recommendations so that they only source adequate information—I think that's the word they used: adequate information—ahead of making a decision. What does that even mean? Rather than the best available, they want adequate information. This is a government that's pressing on with its great noble and ambitious desire for adequacy! That's what this government is about: adequacy—'Let's not be the best. Let's just be adequate.' I think that's a nice way of saying mediocre, though I think it's even a bit of a stretch to call the government mediocre. But that's what they want to do.
Instead of showing national leadership, instead of taking responsibility and putting a firm hand on the wheel, which is necessary to guide and drive the protection of our environment, as a Labor government would do, this coalition government is instead pushing away all its responsibility, mitigating its risk, washing its hands of this and getting others to do the work and take the responsibility that it should be taking. This bill makes it clear that the Morrison government has no interest in the Commonwealth having the power to make such important decisions of national environmental significance. He wants the states to make those tough decisions to enact legislation they see fit to protect the environment, without any national guidelines or at least not with guidelines that are sourced or developed on the best available information. We might call them adequate guidelines. That would be the best way to describe what they're trying to do. We don't think that's good enough. As the parliament of Australia, for all of Australia, we must have responsibility and we must have a say on how we protect the environment.
This government, this coalition government, the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government—I can't start naming the Deputy Prime Ministers; I'll run out of time—has vacated the field on any form, any semblance of environmental leadership. Under this government, our natural environment actually goes backwards. Tony Abbott, when he was Prime Minister, tried to strip areas of world heritage protection. Malcolm Turnbull, for all of his pontificating as Prime Minister and his demonstrative, or performative, element of showing how progressive he was, took the largest step backwards in conservation by any government anywhere in the world by stripping back Australia's marine parks. He also awarded nearly half a billion dollars to a small private foundation instead of directly investing in restoring the health of the Great Barrier Reef. That was his decision; that was this government's decision. And Scott Morrison, as Prime Minister, has virtually turned add blind eye to what's happening in the Murray-Darling Basin. Of course, we've all seen the pictures of him throwing around lumps of coal in the parliament as a stunt.
This government has presided over an explosion of 510 per cent in job and investment delays through environmental decision blowouts. A staggering 95 per cent of environmental approval decisions were delivered late and outside statutory time frames in 2018 and 2019, and environmental decisions contained errors or were noncompliant in 79 per cent of approvals. Surely even this government sees that asking legislators to blindly extend regulations we've been told are failing is not something that we should be considering.
Now, on our side of the House we do have a plan to protect Australia's unique and precious environment and ecosystems. At the last election, we committed to establishing an environmental protection agency, an EPA. This agency would be charged with protecting oceans, rivers, bush, coastlines and native species, and it would bring, frankly, Australia in line with many western democracies, including the United States. It was actually Richard Nixon, a Republican president, who established the United States of America's EPA 50 years ago. Where are we?
Labor took to the last federal election a plan to strengthen our environmental laws so that they factor in climate and water impacts. It has been Labor governments that have protected our environment over the generations. We know the history there. It was a Labor government that created the environmental protection laws and Labor governments that acted to protect Antarctica, the Daintree, Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef. As an opposition, Labor has called on the Morrison government to introduce strong national environmental standards, to establish a genuinely independent cop on the beat for Australia's environment and to fix the explosion of unnecessary job and investment delays caused by the government's massive funding cuts in this space.
This is a flawed bill and the government know it. They've wilfully and consciously watered down most of Professor Samuel's recommendations. They're seeking to give ministers more power to make whatever decisions they want, regardless of environmental impact and based only on 'adequate' advice—not the best available advice, just the adequate advice. Let's all just be adequate, not strive for the best. They've ensured that the new Environment Assurance Commissioner will be toothless, with no practical powers. Despite these very obvious shortcomings, these underhanded tactics to water down Australia's environmental regulations, they've asked us to trust them—trust that they can do the job to protect Australia's environment. That's what they're asking for, and they're asking this despite their woeful track record on the environment.
I don't trust the government to protect Australia's environment. I don't trust them on environmental protection. I think the Australian people don't trust them on these matters. I don't trust the government to welcome oversight and advice that they should be taking—the best possible advice from environmental experts and scientists. They just won't do it. They're much happier to degrade it down to adequate advice which suits them. I don't trust the minister to make decisions to put the people, the wildlife, the animals and the land ahead of corporate interests. I just flat out don't trust this government, and that's why we are opposing this bill.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (12:02): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. May I start by thanking the many people, organisations and communities around Australia who submitted to the Samuel review and put on the record their concerns about our track record of protecting the environment, as well as the many who have engaged with me and my office in relation to this legislation and these amendments. I would remind my colleagues in this place that many, many people are watching what you are doing in this place.
This bill will make significant changes to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. For 20 years this act has been Australia's primary national environmental law. It is key to protecting Australia's wildlife, its heritage and its fauna, and it must do so because Australia is blessed. We are unique. We are a continent with the most amazing diversity of unique plants and animals in the world. Rather than taking that for granted, we need to celebrate it, respect it, ensure that we conserve it and ensure that we protect it. From the quokkas on the sandy beaches of Western Australia to the kookaburra's laugh you can hear as you walk to work, Australian wildlife is unique and so, so precious. It is so easy to take for granted that we have it. It's only in moments of dire circumstance, like the bushfires of 2019, that you're reminded of how precarious it can be. The scientists in the field see it a lot, but for most people it was only those incredible images of our wildlife fleeing and burning that really reminded us what it means to be Australian, what is unique about our fauna and flora, our animals in Australia—and that people care. You only had to see the outpouring of support and donations to help protect and assist with the wildlife and the animal rescues to know how much Australians do care about that part of their environment.
Australian wildlife is under threat from man-made climate change, deforestation, predation by feral cats and invasive species. We have so many aspects that we need to take care of through this legislation to ensure that we protect it. That is our responsibility and duty to future generations. We are at a crucial point. Species are going extinct every year. Populations of animals are being decimated. This is supercharged by events like the bushfires. If we don't reverse course, if we don't, in this place, start to put some value on this and show respect, we stand to lose what makes Australia a global natural treasure. There is no doubt about it: if we don't change course and we don't implement some strong protections, that is the course we're taking. Our grandchildren will only know about unique plants and animals of Australia through pictures in a book or on a computer screen, or through those left over in museums and zoos. They will not exist in nature.
Many Australians care deeply about our environment and want us in this place to be doing our utmost to protect it. There have been so many emails from constituents. This issue has absolutely galvanised people. In every survey and at every touchpoint with the electorate, people—from children to adults to retirees; they're of all political persuasions, and all ages and demographics—always list the environment, the health of our environment and the uniqueness of our environment, as the No. 1 issue to be protected. It's the No. 1 issue for schools. I'm always astounded by the passion and the knowledge our children have about this, because they know what is so precious and what is at risk. Young people, I would say, are so much more environmentally conscious than anyone in this place, and certainly me and my peers when I was at the same age. We simply didn't have that education to remind us what was at risk, what we were at risk of losing if we blindly followed a path of not properly protecting it.
It is extraordinary that the government, after such a lengthy review and after such a detailed report from Graeme Samuel, would propose a suite of bills that are entirely insufficient. They ultimately do nothing to really protect the environment. We heard many times in this place that it was about cutting green tape, because that green tape is really getting in the way of developments and progress. They're completely overlooking the price that will be paid if that is the focus. There has to be the right balance. I was really hoping the minister would take a better approach to this, but, unfortunately, this bill is cementing the Morrison government's poor record on the environment. And the irony is that we are debating this bill a day after UNESCO warned Australia that the Great Barrier Reef may be classified as 'in danger'. The reef is one of the most unbelievable treasures of the world, a source of huge amounts of revenue to Australia because of the tourism and industry that surrounds it, and yet it is in danger because we are failing to properly protect it.
The Samuel review was extensive. Professor Graeme Samuel was appointed by the Minister for the Environment to do that independent review of our Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The review was really clear. It found that, in the current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand the threats. The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable. Samuel slammed the performance of the act. He said:
The EPBC Act is ineffective. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environmental matters that are important for the nation. It is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges.
The review had 38 recommendations to improve the performance of the act. Some have been agreed to by the government. But key to those recommendations were the protections that needed to be implemented. Sadly, they are lacking; they are what is missing in this bill today. He recommended the streamlining of environmental approvals by accrediting the states and territories to make those decisions. I appreciate that this is trying to reduce green tape, or to accelerate that process of approval. But let's be clear: that can only occur—and it is the Commonwealth's responsibility—if we have assurances of clear standards that are going to be maintained. Unfortunately, policies change so much from state to state, and states have a vested interest in allowing developments to go ahead. They don't always give environmental concerns at least the same billing, or above, and make sure those protections occur.
Underpinning Graeme Samuel's recommendation were supposed to be national environmental standards and an environmental assurance commissioner, as well as an office of compliance and enforcement to ensure that the standards were complied with. These recommendations are key; they're not just 'might be nice to have'. They're key to anything in this proposal actually working. The report spoke a lot about regaining the trust of the Australian public and stakeholders in the act. Samuel felt that the community and industry do not currently trust the EPBC Act and that the regulatory system which underpins its implementation is lacking. Maintaining and enhancing trust must mean that transparency has to come from any reform.
Unfortunately, the Morrison government rammed the first tranche of reforms—the one-touch approvals—through in a single day of parliament, without allowing people to speak on them, without allowing debate and without allowing even the moving of amendments in the consideration in detail stage. It was a shameful episode for the Minister for the Environment to come into this place and push through the suspension of standing orders to go straight through the bill without even a consideration in detail process. Many in the community have written to me, absolutely despairing about those occurrences and the situation we have with the weakening of environmental laws by the government. It's really incredibly disappointing that the incredible images we saw in 2019 and 2020 with the bushfires have not moved the government to take this on board and actually ensure that we implement the protections necessary.
Now we're debating the next tranche of reforms. Graeme Samuel recommended several preconditions to accrediting states and territories with approvals. The precondition that was most important was the national environmental standards. These are the centrepiece of the reforms. According to the review report, they:
… describe the outcomes that contribute to effective environmental protection and management as well as the fundamental processes that are needed to support the effective implementation of the EPBC Act.
Further, the standards should be:
… relevant to all decision-makers operating or accredited under the EPBC Act.
They should ensure that the Commonwealth requirements and obligations for environmental approval and other decisions are upheld, regardless of which jurisdiction makes an approval decision. We're bound under a number of international treaties and yet we're devolving everything to the states, without a national environmental standard.
Schedule 1 of this bill introduces powers for the making of the standards. I welcome the power to make the standards, but it has to be improved to actually give us some certainty. Several clauses need complete reworking. Subclause 65H(1) provides that decisions must not be inconsistent with the standards. But then straight after that, in 65H(7), we have a public interest exemption that allows for the circumvention of this requirement. So you can get around the fact of needing to comply with standards under public interest. And there's no definition of 'public interest'. It's always in the detail that you can see the flaws. That leaves extraordinary room to just ignore the standards. Not only is the government handing over the decision to the states but it's also giving them the defence that they don't even need to comply with the standards if they can say it's in the public interest. Clause 65G provides for review of the standards, which is important. However, there's no real requirement that the review be conducted by an independent expert—just 'persons'. Again, where is the transparency that Graeme Samuel says is so important for this reform to work?
There also needs to be a public consultation phase in any review. Clause 65H(2) provides that, in assessing whether a decision is not inconsistent with the standards, various activities, including government programs and policies, can be taken into consideration. So the assessment criteria are unnecessarily broad and further weaken scrutiny. Under the current wording, anything could be considered relevant by the decision-makers, ultimately. The Law Council of Australia has pointed to the problems in 65H(1) and 65H(4), stating that there is uncertainty regarding the potential for certain processes and decisions to be excluded from the application of standards under this power. It absolutely needs to go back to the drawing board. Given the government's record on the reef and on so many aspects of our environmental protection and given the events only this week with the change of leadership of the Nationals, there is clearly no consensus on environmental protection within the coalition party room. Our national environmental standards cannot be left to secret negotiations behind closed doors. Minister Ley should be putting these forward as part of this reform so that we can have certainty about what the standards are going to be.
Recommendation 23 is for the establishment of a new independent statutory position of Environment Assurance Commissioner. That is important in providing independent monitoring and auditing and transparent public reporting on the operational and administrative performance of all parties. It really is important that these things be implemented. So many recommendations from the Samuel review have been overlooked and ignored by the government. How can we be assured that there will, ultimately, be the kind of environmental protections that are necessary? The government has cherry-picked recommendations and has failed to put forward the consensus and the full extent of the protections that Graeme Samuel requested and strongly recommended.
We need to have provisions in relation to the standards, and I will be moving amendments to that effect in the consideration in detail stage to ensure that we have those. We cannot afford for these reforms to go wrong. It is incredible to think that anyone in this place who is a member of the 46th Parliament would like to be named as part of the generation and the parliament that failed to protect Australia's wildlife, plants and uniqueness—animals like koalas that are likely to become endangered and unable to survive in the wild. That will be a huge, huge stain on everyone in this place if it's allowed to happen.
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (12:17): I am proud to stand with Labor and oppose the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 today. The Morrison government should withdraw it and, instead, propose real reform in keeping with the recommendations of the Samuel review.
In my first speech in this place, I spoke about how my first experience of activism was actually environmental activism, sparked when I saw land-clearing in a rainforest which sent koalas fleeing for refuge into my parents' front yard in Port Macquarie, New South Wales. For the past 30 years, I have lived in the electorate of Corangamite in Victoria, and I continue to love, and fight for, Australia's environment—our beautiful country, our incredible wildlife, our magnificent ocean and waterways and our amazing big blue sky. That love continues to motivate my work in this place. I know that people in my community are also extraordinarily passionate about protecting our environment. In recent weeks and months, I've had more than 500 individuals and groups contact my office about the government's proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, contained in this bill. This is the message that the members of my communities want the Prime Minister and the Morrison government to hear loud and clear: they do not want our environmental protections watered down, they do not want a return to failed Abbott-era policies and they certainly do not want the Commonwealth to give up on our environment. But the evidence is in. Yesterday, UNESCO released its draft decision to include the Great Barrier Reef on its endangered list. Tragically, instead of protecting our iconic environmental assets, like the Great Barrier Reef, the Morrison government has decided to wage ideological warfare on our environment, on climate change, on zero net emissions by 2050, on biodiversity and on protecting our native species—and, with that, the millions of jobs in tourism and small business that rely on healthy, sustainable environments.
This bill would hand decision-making and approval powers to the states, which could directly impact protection of threatened species and habitats. It puts the onus not on the federal government but on the states to make decisions without proper resourcing. Put simply, the Morrison government is abdicating its responsibility with this legislation, providing no improvements to environmental protections. It could not be worse. It is a resurrection of Tony Abbott's failed one-stop-shop reforms and, if passed, its measures will represent the most significant change to the EPBC Act this century. This legislation would be bad for the environment, it would be bad for business and it would be bad for jobs. It fails every single test, and it is a fail for this complacent, eight-year-old government, which has the dubious honour of being a world leader in mammal extinction.
The EPBC Act is our principal instrument of federal environmental law. Its second 10-yearly statutory review was conducted by Professor Graeme Samuel. Professor Samuel found that Australia's natural environment and iconic places, like those in my electorate, are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. Professor Samuel said:
The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animal and invasive plant species. The impact of climate change … will exacerbate pressures, contributing to further decline. The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.
This finding is not surprising. Even before the recent horrific bushfires, Australia was in the midst of an extinction crisis. So many animals, like the tiger quoll and the koala in my area, are at risk. Since the fires, over one billion animals have died. Professor Samuel also found that the current EPBC Act is woefully ineffective, saying:
It does not enable the Commonwealth to play its role in protecting and conserving environmental matters that are important to Australia. It is not fit to address current or future environmental challenges.
He pointed out:
Fundamental reform of national environmental law is required, and new, legally enforceable National Environmental Standards should be the foundation. Standards should be granular and measurable, providing flexibility for development, without compromising environmental sustainability.
When the government publicly released Professor Samuel's interim report in July last year, the Minister for the Environment said that the government would introduce strong, rigorous environmental standards that had 'buy-in across the board'. Well, yet again, we see this government failing to deliver, but this time it is our environment at stake.
It is important to note that the national environmental standards have been released but all they do is replicate the obligations under the current provisions. The bill also sets up an independent audit capacity but it will not be truly independent and will not have sufficient powers to do its job anyway. What a lack of vision! What utter complacency! What a sad day for our environment.
The Morrison government's bill is just a rehash of Tony Abbott's failed 2014 approach, putting the environment, jobs and investment at risk. It is remarkable that a government that calls itself conservative is shrinking its responsibility to conserve and protect this country's natural heritage for the benefit of our children and grandchildren. Instead of resurrecting failed Abbott-era policies, the Morrison government should start to fix the problems that Professor Samuel has identified and which Australians are witnessing every day. This means introducing strong national environmental standards, establishing a genuinely independent cop on the beat for Australia's environment, and fixing the explosion in unnecessary job and investment delays caused by this government's massive funding cuts.
I am so fortunate to represent one of the most beautiful parts of Australia. Corangamite contains some of the most famous beaches in our nation, including Bells Beach, Fairhaven and Thirteenth Beach on the Bellarine and Swan Bay in Queenscliff, to name just a few. From the stunning waterfalls and tree ferns in the Otways to Lake Elizabeth near Forrest and the Ramsar wetlands in the Bellarine, my electorate is nothing short of spectacular. Everyone in our community is proud of our environment. Driving along the heritage listed Great Ocean Road is a wonderful reminder of just how lucky we are to live in Australia. The steep cliffs that ribbon the coast, the golden sand, the massive stands of eucalypts and the sound of crashing waves below—it takes your breath away every time. Often in this chamber we debate matters that might seem abstract. But what is at stake in this debate is all too clear. It's our parks, our beaches, our native animals, our World Heritage sites and our forests. It's our communities and it's their livelihoods. Our environment is 100 per cent intertwined with jobs and our economy. We need one to sustain the other. Each year prior to COVID more than six million visitors came down the Great Ocean Road to explore our scenic wonders and spend locally.
I know that my community would not be the same without the incredible natural environment around us. Our beaches, forest and coastline create and sustain jobs in our region. They bring people to the area for work, to visit and to live. As the population expands in my region, there is growing pressure on our environment to keep jobs, to keep the millions of tourists visiting the region and to keep our way of life. We need to ensure we protect our natural environment. This includes the vistas to the ocean, the green belts between townships and our extraordinary coastline. So much is riding on it, including jobs. Today I want to share with you some of the feedback I've received from local residents and groups about the government's proposed changes and how important it is for us to fix our environmental laws. Many who wrote to me were angry and despairing about this government's lacklustre performance on the environment and the EPBC Act. Marilyn, a voter in my electorate, said, 'I'm extremely concerned we will end up with weaker environmental protections than we currently have.' Marilyn is just one of hundreds of constituents who have urged me to stand here today and oppose this bill. Annie asked me to 'not pass the buck on Australia's extinction crisis'. A young businesswoman, Elle, told me it was my duty to protect our most vulnerable wildlife. I agree with her; it is my duty, it is our legacy.
To quote another constituent, Tony said, 'Only together can we stop Australia's extinction crisis.' But we can't do this without strong environmental protections. We need a plan to stop the extinction of much-loved animals like my region's hooded plover. We need a plan to halt coastal erosion. We need a plan to clean up and sustain our waterways for the next generation. We need a plan to protect our iconic wonders, like the Twelve Apostles, from invasive exploratory drilling. I want to thank the many organisations and individuals who wrote to me, phoned me and got in touch with me about this bill. Your stories are powerful and your commitment to our local environment is nothing short of extraordinary. Labor is and will continue to be committed to protecting the environment. Every major achievement in environmental protection in this nation's history has been delivered by a Labor government. We protected Antarctica. We protected the Daintree and Kakadu. We protected the Great Barrier Reef and the Franklin, and Labor created Landcare.
Going forward, Labor will fight for laws and policies that conserve biodiversity, protect the environment and address the extinction crisis. Labor will reduce the unnecessary delays in decision-making so that appropriate projects can go ahead sooner and ensure high-quality decision-making so that decisions are made lawfully and well, with science at the centre, while respecting First Nations people's authority and knowledge, including the Wathaurong and Eastern Maar people in my electorate. Finally, we will have robust policy that tackles climate change head-on.
The impact on biodiversity, our ecosystems and our environment will be catastrophic if we do nothing. I will continue to be a passionate advocate for environmental protection, because our coast, our local species, our forests, our communities and our jobs in Corangamite rely on it.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:30): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. There are lots of things we love to talk about in Australia, where we say our country is punching above its weight, and we celebrate every time we appear on the podium internationally. But there's one place where we're coming first that shames us as a country: Australia is the world leader in mammal extinction. More species of mammals die here than anywhere else. We're also a place that has the first recorded and attributed climate change extinction—species going extinct because of the growing climate crisis. We aren't just in a climate emergency; we are in a climate and extinction emergency. We are at a point in history where, if we don't act, we are going to see the fellow species that we inhabit this wonderful planet with wiped out at a rate that we have never ever seen before. They are already being wiped out, but worse is still to come. In Australia there's something this parliament can do about it. There's something this parliament can do to ensure that the other species we share this land called Australia with are protected.
Most people would think that if you have a piece of legislation called 'the environment protection act' it does what it says on the tin—that it protects the environment. But it doesn't at the moment, and we know that not just because wilderness and environment and conservation campaigners have been pointing it out, and pleading with us for ages to do something about the fact that we are wiping out species at a rate of knots; the government's own commissioned inquiry told us that. The government commissioned an independent inquiry, and it found that there are holes in the legislation big enough for whole species to fall through. It is the reason we see development approval after development approval end up with species going extinct—with, as I said, mammals going extinct the fastest; Australia has become the world leader there.
The independent review told us we need legislation that puts in place strong minimum standards, and it backed in many respects what the Greens have been saying for some time—that we do not have a strong set of minimum standards. Not only that; we also devolve too many decisions to state governments. A big problem with that is that state governments are the ones most often captured by the big developers. The developers take those developer donations, and come in and say, 'We want to bulldoze this area of land, we want to mine this area and we want to blow up that area, and, by the way, here's a bit of money to be donated to your political party.' It's the state governments that very often go rogue and have to be reined in, because they're in the pockets of the big corporations and the developers that do things that see species go extinct. That's what came out in the review. It made it clear that too often not only do we not have any standards but we're letting the wrong people make the decisions about protecting our environment. The review also told us we don't have a tough cop on the beat. We have these weak standards. We devolved so many of the decisions to the people who are actually the problem in the first place and who are captured by the big corporations and the billionaires, but then we don't have a tough cop on the beat to come in to check that those weak standards are being complied with.
The government's own independent report came back to it and said: 'Fix those things. Put in place strong standards and have a tough cop on the beat.' What does the government do? The government says: 'Well, we'll cherry-pick some of that. We won't take the strong standards bit. We won't take the "tough cop on the beat" bit. What we might do is pass legislation that gives even more power to those state governments that should have less power to begin with.' The first piece of legislation that the government came to us with was to say, 'Let's contract out even more of it to the state governments.' It's no surprise that this parliament has said no to that so far. It has said: 'We can't support that. You cannot support going against the spirit of your own report.' The minister said at the time: 'Well, no, it's okay. We promise to fix it up. We promise that there'll be strong national standards in place. Just take our word for it.' Of course, there's no reason to trust this government when it comes to stopping the extinction crisis and stopping the climate and environment emergency that we're facing.
Then the government says: 'We'll tell you what we'll do. We'll introduce a bill about standards.' A few of us thought, 'Well, you've got an independent report that says "lift the standards to protect Australia's environment", so maybe this bill is going to do that.' But this bill that we've been debating today does nothing of the sort. All it says is, 'We're going to take the existing inadequate standards that are in the legislation, that've been roundly criticised by everyone, including the government's own hand-picked reviewer, and we're just going to put it in a new bill and legislate those, but still leave pretty much everything up to the discretion of the minister.' This is an attempt at a fig leaf that, on any reading, completely fails to do what the independent review asked and what environment groups, wilderness and conservation campaigners and scientists have been saying for ages is needed.
You only have to listen to what the Academy of Science said when this bill was being inquired into by the Senate to understand just how terrible this is. The expert evidence from the Academy of Science about the so-called standards in this bill was this: 'The standards that are now proposed as interim standards are not scientifically credible.' It is staggering that, after this massive review process and all of these submissions, the government bowls up a bill called the standards and assurances bill to protect the environment, and the scientists tell us it is not scientifically credible. It's not surprising, because this government, like the state governments, takes donations from the billionaires and big corporations that are wrecking our environment. So it's no wonder they come up with a bill that scientists say is not scientifically credible.
The Humane Society International and the Environmental Defenders Office, having reviewed the latest version of the National Environment Standards tabled by the department on 30 April of this year, told the committee that: 'The latest versions of the standards have further weakened possible environmental outcomes.' So the expert evidence is, again, not only that the standards have no scientific credibility but that the standards might even potentially weaken environmental outcomes. The National Environmental Science Program's Threatened Species Recovery Hub summed up the overarching problem very succinctly when they appeared before the Senate committee. Talking about these standards, this piece of legislation, they said:
I see no basis to be enthusiastic about where this would leave us. I think it's going to leave us, at best, in the same position we're in, which is a parlous state. We are in the middle of an extinction crisis.
When our environment, our koalas, our precious wildlife is under such threat, what does the government do? It bowls up a piece of legislation that the scientists say has no scientific credibility and that the analysts say will not halt the extinction crisis. At best, they tell us, it's going the leave us where we are now, and, at worst, it will take us backwards. Still the government refuses to implement that other recommendation of the inquiry and have a tough cop on the beat, because then they'd know standards might actually have to be enforced.
We have an appalling situation in this country where it's possible for a big corporation or a developer, while they are awaiting an approval from the environment minister for their project to go ahead, to make a donation to that environment minister's political party. Because we have this terrible situation in this country where billionaires and big corporations make these donations to the big political parties, the big political parties then put in ministers who have weak pieces of legislation. The government can then be making decisions about projects at the very same time as money is being paid to their political parties, through the back door, in the form of political donations. That is what is contributing to us being the world leader in mammal extinction. That is why we are in an extinction crisis. What we need is legislation that introduces the tough environmental standards that the scientists have been calling for, that ensures that we have got a tough cop on the beat and that doesn't let the rogue state governments who are so easily captured by the developers and big corporations that are wrecking our environment make the decisions about whether to approve projects or not.
This is a bad bill. The government needs to go back and read its own independent report more closely—not just pick particular recommendations but understand the holes that were being pointed out in the legislation—and come back to this parliament with legislation that introduces the best possible environmental standards to stop our species going extinct. But that's not this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation, as it is, will do nothing to halt the extinction crisis that we are in and may well, in fact, accelerate it.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (12:43): I disagree with the member for Melbourne: I don't think this is a bad bill; I think it's a terrible bill. It's an appalling piece of legislation. Yes, it will do some things. Yes, it will give the minister power to set environmental standards. But let's look at that for a moment. The proposed requirements for environmental standards are weak and unclear. The power to make standards is discretionary. Definitions of key terms are missing, and review requirements are vague. It would allow the government's weak interim standards to remain in place indefinitely, and environmental groups, lawyers and experts have consistently rejected the government's proposed standards, which just reflect the failing legislation we already have in place.
Yes, the bill will establish the Environmental Assurance Commissioner, but let's look at that for a moment. The commissioner would be limited to a 'general' audit with no power to investigate proponents, to compel information or to investigate individual decisions related to projects. There is no compliance or enforcement power for the commissioner, and the minister has input into work plans, meaning the commissioner isn't properly independent. The commissioner can't conduct unplanned audits. There are no requirements for particular expertise or qualifications for the commissioner. There are poor public disclosure conflict-of-interest requirements. And it's a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended, quite wisely, in Professor Samuel's interim report. In fact, in essence, the commissioner that we would get from this piece of legislation is a toothless tiger, one that will basically ensure business as usual. I think I've made myself quite clear: this is a terrible piece of legislation. So, in response, I'm going to move an amendment. I move:
That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
":
(1) noting that the bill:
(a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight;
(b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and
(c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis;
(2) the House:
(a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and
(b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes".
In essence, what I'm proposing is that the parliament ditch this terrible piece of legislation and instead adopt the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill that I tabled and spoke about in this place in March 2021. That bill, a much superior bill, would ensure that the EPA would be created, which would effectively and transparently exercise the administrative functions currently held by the Commonwealth concerning the EPBC Act, as well as any other federal legislation relating to the environment. This would include issuing approvals, granting permits, auditing environmental impact assessments and monitoring postapproval impacts. The EPA I propose will have the power to undertake both systemic and individual investigations into applications, environmental impact statements or any other documents received in support of an application. Moreover, the EPA I propose will have the power to terminate an approval or even issue a stop-work order in circumstances where serious environmental harm has been caused or is imminent. Importantly, the EPA I propose will also have a call-in power for monitoring, compliance and enforcement even when a state or territory bilateral agreement has been made. Moreover, the EPA I propose will be headed by an appropriately qualified CEO who is independently appointed for a fixed term and supported by a newly established parliamentary joint committee on the environment and energy. And, to avoid even the perception of bias, the senior staff will be prevented from having any potential conflicts of interest, including employment as a politician or lobbyist in the five years preceding appointment to the EPA.
I call on both major parties—the government and the opposition—to support the bill that I propose through this amendment. What I propose is practical, has community support and will deliver real outcomes for our environment.
This is not a contentious proposal. Regularly, independent statutory watchdogs are created to oversee complex areas of policy or where there is a risk of bias, corruption or conflicts of interest. Communications and media companies are overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, Consumer Law is overseen by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission is charged with looking after markets and financial services. I've been working with my crossbench colleagues for years to establish an independent commission against corruption to clean up our political institutions and to tackle corruption. So now, when we're seeing the imminent collapse of precious ecosystems, when Australia is a world leader in extinctions and when we're already facing unprecedented threats from climate change, a strong independent regulator is more important than ever. But a strong independent regulator will not be the outcome of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021, which is before us today.
The bill I propose we pursue through this amendment is supported by Places You Love Alliance, a group of key environmental groups which represent communities across the country. This includes groups like World Wildlife Fund Australia, the Wilderness Society, Australian Conservation Foundation, BirdLife Australia, Humane Society International and Environmental Justice Australia. I leave the amendment before the House, and I ask for the support of both the government and the opposition. It is not too late to abandon this legislation that the government brings to the House and to chart a different course, to instead be fair dinkum about looking after our environment, to arrest the extinction crisis, to take the power to intervene away from the government and give it to a genuinely independent body, made up of experts with no conflicts of interests, who can intervene, have punitive powers and who can genuinely look after our environment across the whole of the country. They can certainly do a much better job than what's being done currently by state and territory governments.
On that point, I'd make the observation that the Tasmanian government is doing a dreadful job of looking after the Tasmanian environment and the Tasmanian natural environment. That's why we need a strong cop on the beat at the federal level, just like we already have strong cops on the beat to look after any number of other matters. I will leave it there. I look to the government and the opposition to support this amendment, and then we'll be charting a much more effective course into the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): Is the amendment seconded?
Dr Haines: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (12:52): I'm very pleased to support the amendment moved by the shadow environment minister, Terri Butler. We can't say any louder than we have been that Labor wants to work constructively with the government on getting a decent set of environmental laws. We have reached out our hand to the government but we can't force the government to take our hand on this matter. So we're left with a rehash of old legislation put forward by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a bill that failed then and fails now not only because it puts Australia's natural environment at greater risk but also because it puts jobs and investment at risk. We are very clear that this needs to be a piece of legislation that provides for the long term, that gives stability and that is a win-win. Our environment has to win out of this. But people who are looking to have projects assessed also have to have certainty out of it.
When we look at why this matters, we really have to look at the state of play that we have at the moment. There are some extremely serious challenges before the government, and the environment is not the least of those. I turn to the words of Professor Graeme Samuel, hardly a bleeding lefty, a greenie or any of those terms that those opposite like to throw around; he is an eminent Australian whose background is in regulation, through the ACCC and business. This is what he has said to the government:
Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat.
He goes on to say:
The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animals and invasive plant species. The impact of climate change on the environment will exacerbate pressures and contribute to further decline. In its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats.
I just want to say that again:
In its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats.
He goes on to say:
The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.
Those are Professor Samuel's words, through his review of the EPBC Act, and it is so obvious from the language that he uses that we have a need for immediate action to be taken.
I have a personal interest in this, given that I, along with my constituents, live in the middle of World Heritage, an area that the world identifies as being exceptional and unique. The World Heritage Greater Blue Mountains Area covers more than 10,000 square kilometres. The reason it has been declared World Heritage is the exceptional diversity of eucalypts. It's estimated that there are about 91 different eucalypts found in the World Heritage Greater Blue Mountains Area. There are outstanding examples of how those eucalypts have evolved and adapted on our continent. We have a wide range of habitats, from wet and dry sclerophyll forests to woodlands, mallee heathlands, grasslands and localised swamps. Besides the eucalypts, we also have primitive plant species such as the Wollemi pine.
That means, of course, that we have exceptional animals as well, which live in and around our eucalypts, and the flora is extraordinary. From a fauna perspective, 400 species have been recorded in our World Heritage area, everything from koalas and red-necked wallabies to squirrel gliders, platypus, tiger quolls, echidnas, gliders, eastern grey kangaroos and mountain brushtail possums—I don't think they're going to be on the endangered list soon, but many of other ones are, especially koalas. We also have rare reptiles and amphibians, such as the Blue Mountains water skink and the green and golden belt frog. We have 4,000 moths and 120 butterfly species. We're considered to be an important bird area, with a high number of significant bird species, such as flame robins, glossy black-cockatoos, white-browed babblers, white-eared honeyeaters, superb lyrebirds and diamond firetails.
It is an extraordinary place. It's spread over a large area, but each separate habitat is vital for the survival of those species. Of course, the bushfires have affected that area really badly. A total of 79 per cent of the World Heritage Greater Blue Mountains Area was burnt in the 2019-20 fires. That's 855,000 hectares that was burnt, and there were consequences of that. People say, 'Well, the bush bounces back really easily.' No, this bush hasn't bounced back very easily in every area. There's still black as far as the eye can see in some valleys, and we know it has a really long way to go. But, in terms of the impact on native fauna, the estimate is that 15 million mammals, excluding bats, 17 million birds and 110 million reptiles died. That's a shocking toll, and I have to say that I think we've done very little. This government has done very little to properly audit and then look at how we recover from some of the losses that have been experienced there.
When you look at this legislation and you think about the things that we're facing, that was just one natural disaster. Yes, it was one of the worst fires we've ever seen—the largest fire the world has seen from a single ignition point—but we know that those fires are coming increasingly frequently. We know that they're bigger. We know they're wilder. Therefore, there's even greater reason for us to have strong environmental and biodiversity protections.
The Australian government has acknowledged that 13 of our endemic species, including 12 mammals and the first reptile known to have been lost since European colonisation, are gone. It puts us in the shameful position—I've heard it described as 'unenviable', but actually it's shameful—of being No. 1 in the world for mammal extinctions, lifting to 34 the total number of mammals that are known to have died out. When I looked into this, no other country is even close to us. We've really excelled at this, and that is a disgrace. The updated list of extinct animals means that more than 10 per cent of the 320 land mammals known to have lived in Australia in 1788 are extinct, and we've managed to lose that 10 per cent in a really short time frame. I'd like to see laws that slow down and, ideally, reverse that process, but these laws don't offer us the sorts of protections that we need. These laws don't strengthen what we have. They do nothing to help reverse these trends.
We all know that koalas could soon be listed as endangered in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT because those populations in particular were smashed by the bushfires. In my own area, a couple that were rescued have now been re-released. We had one of the few chlamydia-free koala populations, but they have taken such a hit that no-one really knows whether they will be able to come back from it. What we do know, though, is that koalas could be extinct in New South Wales by 2050 unless urgent action is taken, yet here we have a piece of legislation that indicates no sense of urgency about the threats that we are facing. Even the kids at Winmalee Public School have a greater sense of urgency. I want to commend them for the work they've done just recently with a koala expert, Dr Kellie Leigh. They've been working to plant habitat that is considered one of the favourites for koalas. This is a mass planting at Deanei Reserve in Springwood. Well done to the Winmalee Public School kids! It's the school my children went to, and I know there has always been a strong sense of wanting to protect and enhance the environment that their school nestles in, with their suburb surrounded by a World Heritage area.
While we're talking about environment laws, I also think it's significant what the world expects of us. There are certain expectations that the laws that are put in place, both in this place and in New South Wales, are actually there to enhance our World Heritage area. It isn't any surprise to see that the New South Wales government has been asked by UNESCO to submit the environmental impact study on its plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall so that it can be reviewed before final approval. They're concerned about the damage the project will do to wildlife and Indigenous culture in the World Heritage area. That's the latest request. It aligns with the concerns that the UN body has about areas like the Great Barrier Reef, which they consider to be in significant danger. These aren't just minor issues. We're not in a grey zone here; we're in a really clear zone where there are threats and where there are projects that create ongoing threats. There's the threat that the community and the wildlife faces from the flight paths of the new Western Sydney airport. We don't even know where those flight paths are going to be. Will the sound impact this World Heritage area in a way that nothing ever has before, and what will that do? Maybe not in the first week or in the first year, but, over a long period of time, what environmental consequences will there be in an area considered to be exceptional?
Those are some of the reasons why this legislation is inadequate. It's also inadequate because Australians have to have confidence that, when a project is put forward, it can be assessed in a reasonable time frame. Every single unnecessary delay in a project that has an environmental impact is a delay for that investment and therefore a delay for the jobs. We've been really consistent in the discussions about this review. We've been critical of the government's failures to make decisions on time, but consistent in saying that you need a piece of legislation that enables those processes to happen efficiently. And yet this legislation fails to do that. What we'd like to see, of course, is a government that's willing to work with us on this. I don't understand why a government that uses the word 'bipartisan', throws it around so happily, is unable to actually put it into effect.
An opposition member: Because it doesn't know what it actually means.
Ms TEMPLEMAN: Maybe it doesn't know what it actually means. More likely, it knows what it means but just doesn't care and always wants to politicise what is going on, rather than acting in the best interests of the country. What we see as a consequence of this legislation, should it go through unamended, is that it's likely to lead to even more problems, not less, for investment and for jobs. We're not the only ones who have made this assessment; it's in statements from resources peak bodies and from businesses that recognise that it is inadequate legislation. I really urge the government to rethink this legislation. We are still offering to work constructively on it. How about we come up with something that is actually agreed by this parliament, across the aisle, so that it has longevity? We all want our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren to enjoy the environment that we have been gifted in Australia. But legislation like this will just continue to allow it to be trashed, and I blame the Morrison government for doing that.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (13:06): I'm very pleased to speak against the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 because it's dangerous. It aims to sacrifice the interests of the Australian environment at a critical time for the political interests of this hopeless, reckless coalition government. Anyone who votes for it is condemning Australia's biodiversity to further harm at a time of enormous risk. Anyone who argues for it has been sucked into this government's cheap self-serving game. The most important task when it comes to the EPBC Act is to fix it so that we get effective environmental and heritage protection. Why? Because quite clearly we don't have that now. After eight years, three terms, of this government we have a failed environmental protection system which is leading to animal extinctions. It's leading to coral bleaching. It's leading to marine heatwaves. It's leading to the destruction of ecosystems around this country. The No. 1 imperative of this government, when it comes to the EPBC Act, should be ensuring that that environmental protection framework works. They've had four or five environment ministers in that time, one of them sitting here at the table, and yet they've failed to deliver an environmental protection framework that does the job. A year ago Juukan Gorge was destroyed because the protection framework is not good enough. Yesterday it was noted that UNESCO intends to list the Great Barrier Reef as in danger. In March another 10 species were gazetted on the EPBC list as extinct. We know that the Australian sea lion—our only endemic sea lion species—was listed as being critically endangered earlier this year and we know that the koala is at risk of being extinct in Australia by 2050. Yet all this government wants to do is rush headlong towards the devolution of decision-making powers, pushing its own responsibility along with the present dysfunctional framework, with no additional resources for the states.
The truth is it only wants do that so it can perform some silly dance posturing as the best friend of the mining and resources sector. It could so easily accept Graeme Samuel's recommendations, which would begin to improve what are howlingly bad environmental outcomes, and it could so easily improve the position when it comes to assessment times and decision-making clarity, but it doesn't want to do that. We are hearing from members in the chamber today exactly why it doesn't want to do that—because it wants to pick a silly fight. That's what it wants to do. It wants to try to cosy up to the resources industry and perhaps to some state governments rather than undertake its responsibility to the Australian environment. It would be sensible if it were to listen to its own government appointed reviewer and apply the changes he has recommended. We would consider that a responsible step to take. We would consider that a responsible approach to the Graeme Samuel review and to the desperately needed reform of the EPBC Act. But that isn't what the government wants. The government wants to play a cheap political game. It wants more slogans and more stunts, and it wants to create a point of difference between itself and Labor, even at the cost of sacrificing Australia's environment and Australia's biodiversity. The one thing this bill will guarantee, if passed, is further environmental decline and further biodiversity loss, because that is what is happening right now under the EPBC Act, under this government. Nothing the government has proposed in this bill does a single thing to improve that position.
What I find really disappointing, to be honest—this is an important debate. We know that the last time they brought in an EPBC bill they had to gag the debate at the last moment because I think they realised as it progressed what a disaster it was going to be; we've not seen that bill again. But with this bill, which is relatively momentous, there has been a tiny handful of people on the government side who have come in and been prepared to speak about it, and not one of them have shown that they have the faintest idea of what is in it. I've never seen a greater instance, in my time here, of people coming in and simply saying what must have been written on the piece of paper for them—that this bill is magically going to improve environmental conditions and the timeliness of decision-making and assessments. They say that as if it's a mantra that's been handed down to them from on high. They have no understanding whatsoever of the actual detail of the bill.
I'm also surprised that some industry representatives, in the aftermath of Juukan Gorge, don't seem to have a basic grasp of what the government is trying on here and are not calling on the government to do its job. This is a government that presided over a 510 per cent blowout in assessment times. Ninety-five per cent of all decisions have been late. Seventy-nine per cent of all decisions have had compliance failures. That is the incompetence of the current government that has led to environmental damage and biodiversity loss but has also meant that assessments and decision-making are woefully slow and woefully inefficient. Why hasn't the industry been saying to this government, 'For God's sake, do your job for once'—that would make a nice change—'and deliver an effective environmental protection framework which can be the basis for clearer and more timely project assessments'?
People in the community watching this debate should hold on to five key points to help them understand what is going on here. First, our environment has already suffered enormous harm and is on a trajectory of further decline. We are the world leader in extinctions. Thirty-five per cent of all mammals that have gone extinct since 1500 are Australian. If you look at North America, they've had one mammal extinction in the post-colonial period. We've had 30. We are a world leader, shamefully, when it comes to mammal extinctions. In March this year, the government listed as extinct in the EPBC Act the desert bettong, the Nullabor dwarf bettong, the Capricorn rabbit rat, the great hopping mouse, the western barred bandicoot, the south-eastern striped bandicoot, the Nullabor barred bandicoot, the long-eared mouse, the blue-grey mouse—and that's just in March! Those were extinctions listed in March. That is what is happening to our environment. The Great Barrier Reef has had three bleaching events in five years—the only bleaching events in history. We had a marine heatwave in 2011 that destroyed an enormous amount of seagrass in Western Australia. This government has presided over enormous environmental decline. Graeme Samuel himself said to the government that the trajectory is for further decline, and this bill does nothing to improve that.
Our environmental protection laws and supporting mechanisms are not working. So (1) the environment has been smashed and (2) the environmental protection laws and supporting mechanisms under this government are not working. The framework is stuffed. They've cut 40 per cent out of the environment department, and they've made ridiculous decision after ridiculous decision that puts our biodiversity at risk. It is quite possible, and any sensible person would argue it is necessary and urgent, for us to do something to improve our national environment protection framework.
Graeme Samuel, who was appointed by this government to undertake a statutory review of the EPBC Act, provided a very clear blueprint for this government as to how it could be achieved: improve national standards and put in place a watchdog with teeth. It's really simple: improve national standards and put in place a watchdog with teeth. He even drafted the interim standards for the government. He's provided them with the interim standards; all they have to do is put them in place. But this utterly hopeless, reckless, self-interested government, after eight years and three terms, has ignored its own government review. Straight out of the blocks, the Minister for the Environment—the fourth or fifth environment minister—said: 'We're not having an independent watchdog. Don't worry that 79 per cent of all the decisions have got compliance failures, we're not doing that.' That was her very first decision. That was after the interim report. The government hadn't even got the final report and they were ruling that out. They have not accepted the interim standards that Graeme Samuel proposed.
By the way, on Indigenous heritage protection, Graeme Samuel, in addition to saying that the current laws were not working and were being behind community expectations, recommended that the national environmental standards for Indigenous engagement and participation in decision-making that he had formulated should be immediately adopted. This is in the aftermath of Juukan Gorge. He said those standards should be immediately adopted. Can the government bring itself to do that? No. It is not in this bill and it wasn't in the previous bill. This bill has not picked up one recommendation of the Graeme Samuel review, not one iota. It hasn't adopted the interim standards that he has recommended.
This bill isn't putting in place an independent watchdog with teeth. This assurance commission that is contained in this bill will be housed in the department. The action plan of the assurance commissioner has to be approved by the minister. The assurance commissioner will have no power to look into, to inquire into and to assess individual decisions. It is a sop. When the minister last year said, 'We're not having that altogether,' that was just a little bit of a bridge too far. Too many people—perhaps some people in the government, and certainly some sensible people out in industry—said: 'Hey guys, there are only two recommendations from this government review. You have to at least make a show of accepting one of them.' That's what the assurance commissioner is. It's just a weak, mealy-mouthed gesture towards that recommendation without actually putting in place the changes that are needed.
The only driving imperative in this bill is silly, cheap, idiotic, super dangerous political stunts and games by a desperate government that wants to hang on. That's the only thing that's going on here. People in Western Australia know that. I think people in industry should have a closer look at that. I've been speaking to people in industry in Western Australia from the time the government embarked on this process, and I've said: 'Do yourself a favour. Talk straight to this government. Tell them that you would like to see the EPBC reformed properly. Tell them to improve the environmental protection framework, which we must have for the benefit of our environment, our biodiversity and to meet community expectations. Do that.' Graeme Samuel has given you the blueprint. It's not that hard. You just have to follow what he's recommended to you, which is what you actually commissioned him to undertake. Implement that, and then, on a bipartisan basis, if you could ever bring yourself to do that, move towards a system where you might get some improvements in assessment times. But this government has no interest in that, and people in the sector should know that.
I got this letter hot off the press today, telling me I should get serious about this bill because the Graeme Samuel review highlighted there was an immediate opportunity to devolve decision-making without compromising environmental outcomes. Except, that's exactly what this does; it compromises environmental outcomes. The environment in this country is being smashed. We are seeing more extinctions and more ecosystems under threat with each passing day, and it's because we have a failed environmental protection framework, and we have a hopeless government that has done everything in its power to defund and weaken the environment department.
The government implemented a threatened species strategy. The first version was an abject failure. It set out to improve the position of some targeted species. If you take mammal species, for instance, there were 20 targeted mammal species that they hoped to see improved trajectories for. It included animals like the Gilbert's potoroo, whose home range is down around Albany in Western Australia. The Gilbert's potoroo is the most endangered mammal in Australia. There's a few hundred of them left. Of those 20 targeted species, how many did they get an improved trajectory for? In their report, they said eight out of 20. When you looked a bit closer, of the eight, the improved trajectory of four—so half of the species for which there was improvement—was because they are declining less quickly. So that population is not increasing; it's still decreasing—it's still slipping towards extinction—but just a little bit more slowly than it was before. That's the record of this government. They followed that failed strategy with a new threatened species strategy which was delivered late, with—guess what—no targets, no actions and no funding. That will all be supplied, we're told, by the end of the year. We've got an environmental crisis and these people just twiddle their thumbs.
People in the community should know what this is about. This is 100 per cent a stupid game by a stupid government. It is simply an attempt to create political division to suit their own needs. It is an abdication of their responsibility, after eight years and three terms in this place, to protect the Australian environment and our biodiversity. It is one of the most biodiverse places on the planet. It has been hammered through habitat loss, through feral animals and now through climate change. It desperately needs a protection framework that will reverse what Graeme Samuel has said is a trajectory of decline. But the government cannot bring themselves to do it. None of their ministers for the environment stand up for it and they get pushed around by the member for Tangney and other people, who spend all their time designing what they think of as clever ads for the pages of the West Australian rather than doing their jobs.
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (13:22): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 as the voice of my community of Dunkley, as I do on all manner of legislation and issues that come before this House. I can tell this House that I have received hundreds and hundreds of emails from members of my community about the environment and specifically about this government's attempts to reform the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Not a single one of those hundreds and hundreds of emails has asked me to support this legislation—not a single one.
This morning I received an email from Christine, from my electorate. I'm going to read it to the chamber because it personifies those hundreds and hundreds of emails that I have received from members of my community across Dunkley. It reads:
Dear relevant senators and Ms Murphy, my federal MP
I am extremely concerned that the Morrison government is continuing to push through amendments to the EPBC Act to hand over national decision-making responsibilities to states and territories with no commitment to the national standards Professor Samuel has recommended. Professor Samuel's recommendations are balanced, following a year of consultation with scientists, environment and business groups and the community. I am alarmed that the government is proposing a weaker set of standards.
Christine goes on to say:
The streamlining bill will put Australia's wildlife and habitats in further peril. I think devolving environmental approvals to the states and territories is taking a reckless gamble with our environment. If the government persists with devolving approvals for matters of national environmental significance, it must implement the full recommendations of the independent review, including Professor Samuel's suite of national environmental standards, an independent statutory environment assurance commissioner with teeth, and an independent office of compliance and enforcement.
Christine ends with this sentiment:
Now is not the time to weaken environmental regulations and pass laws that will have detrimental impacts on nature, but instead to ensure that our environment is put at the centre of our thinking and laws, strengthened and enforced.
As I said, Christine's email reflects all of the input that I've had from my community about this legislation and about the Morrison government's reckless attempt to pretend that it's doing something to protect the environment whilst actually weakening protection laws.
In this country we know that 10 species were gazetted as extinct under the EPBC Act in March of this year—10 species! If that doesn't cause every single member of this chamber to have concern then I don't know what would. Our iconic koala is under significant threat. As I will talk about later in this speech, the Great Barrier Reef, one of the Seven Wonders of the World—something that every single person in Australia, no matter where they live, identifies as a glorious environmental jewel in the crown for Australia—is endangered and has been for way too long.
As the shadow minister said in her contribution to this debate, Australia is a world leader in mammal extinctions—not something you'd ever want to be a world leader in, is it? We're in a biodiversity crisis. Australians have seen the impact of those terrible fatal bushfires last year. Australians know what is happening to this country as a result of climate change. Day after day, week after week, Australians have to hear about iconic Australian indigenous animals and plants becoming extinct. Something that we've all been so proud of, and taught to be so proud of, is that all of the animals that we have in Australia are ours and they're nowhere else in the world. Yet under this government more and more of them are becoming extinct. What we are presented with, which we're supposed to believe will protect them, is legislation which isn't even a handkerchief of coverage on this government's failure to act and to act properly.
It's extraordinary how many times the Morrison government commissions independent reviews and reports and then refuses to implement their recommendations—over and over again. What we also see is this pretend attempt to say that they're implementing recommendations and then when we look at the detail they just aren't. It's all trickery. It's not good enough. Australians know it's not good enough. How can it possibly be that we have people in our country at the moment who are concerned that their grandchildren are never going to be able to see a live koala in the bush? It was just recently in my community in Langwarrin, which is an outer suburban community, that we had koalas in the gum trees. Imagine if that can never happen again.
This government should be working day and night on recovery plans but they really don't seem to be. They're more concerned about personal leadership, about spin, about how they might pretend to Australians that they're leading when they're not. We can't have much more of this in this country if we want to have a future where the state of decline of our wonderful, unique environment is halted. That's what we all want but it's not what this legislation will do.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): It being 1.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Sport
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:29): Deputy Speaker, can you feel it? The excitement is building. Today marks Olympic Day. It is exactly one month until the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics Games. The AOC has launch a new ad campaign called 'Have as Go'. It's to let Australians know that great things happen when you have a go. Unfortunately, we can't all compete in the Olympics, but we can all have a go. Obviously, there are enormous health and social benefits when it comes to sport. I represent a particularly diverse community and I know that sport is a language that every member of my multicultural community can speak. Sport is inclusive. You might play sport with people you might otherwise not interact with. You might not always agree with your team members, but when you're on the field you're in the same team and you learn more about your teammates. That breaks down barriers.
In fact, just this morning I played in the parliamentary state of origin touch football game. Obviously, I was in the Queensland team, with the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of the Olympic Movement in Australia, the member for Forde, who, sadly, was injured. The Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Canavan, the member for Wright, the member for Solomon, Senator Watt, the member for Lilley and Senator Chisholm all played on the Queensland team. We all benefited from the exercise and we shared a common experience, which is important for all sporting participants—and that was not just losing to the dreadful New South Wales. But I will say on the record that we'll be back, and I look forward to an event this afternoon with the Parliamentary Friends of the Olympic Movement in Australia. (Time expired)
Mount Larcom Show
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (13:31): In September 2020 the coalition government launched a Supporting Agricultural Shows and Field Days program to provide operational support for agricultural shows. All these shows were affected by COVID during 2020. The Mount Larcom show was granted $70,000, and the hardworking president, Michael Wallace, said he could not have run such a successful show without that program. This show was held last weekend and had record crowds and many record entries. There were pavilion entries, caged birds, pure bred dogs, stud cattle, commercial cattle, the ute muster and chainsaw events, which attracted the three world champions to compete, as well as five top woodcutters.
Back in 1953, the late Reg Peters said, 'Why doesn't Mount Larcom have a show?' Locals got behind Reg's idea, and in 1954 the show began. Reg's vibrant widow, Jean, who is 94 years old, has not missed one show in the 67 years since that date. She believes that the show is so successful because it brings together country people at a great meeting place. This year a new competition commenced, with the Matherson Crane Hire ball drop. A total of $3,000 was raised, including $750 to get the very-afraid-of-heights 4CC radio announcer Hammo into the cane basket, which lifted him 40 metres in the air, and he dropped the ball, but in the wrong place. The money that was raised will be donated to the Gladstone Hospital— (Time expired)
Speech Pathology Services
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (13:33): Speech pathology is crucial to helping people communicate more effectively, particularly those with speech impairments or swallowing difficulties. But, unfortunately, in the Northern Territory there is still significant difficulty in accessing speech pathology services. Even though these services help people optimise their health, educational and social outcomes, there are waiting times frequently in excess of 12 months. Speech pathologists are most vital in early intervention, and there are well-established social and economic benefits to the people receiving the interventions, as well as to the community as a whole.
I want to acknowledge a really passionate speechie in my electorate, Thalia Hewitt, who has opened up a new business in Darwin. Thalia and her partner, Luke, are a great example of the opportunities that the Northern Territory offers. I welcome any allied health professionals to the north. I also want to acknowledge Claudia Whitcombe, a speech pathologist at Early Bird Therapy here in Canberra, and the great work that she does to help kids with autism, disabilities and mental health issues communicate better with the world. Thanks, Claudia, for improving the lives of those that you work with.
I want to recognise the outstanding work that speech pathologists do. I would like to thank all of them for their continued dedication to helping people with speech impediments, as they do improve the wellbeing of our brothers and sisters.
Harry, Mr Richard
Mr PASIN (Barker) (13:34): I rise to offer my congratulations to Richard Harry for being awarded the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia's prestigious Max Gardner Award for Distinguished Service. Richard is a humble but dedicated individual who has been the driving force behind the Limestone Coast Prostate Cancer Support Group for over a decade. Richard's tireless advocacy has played a vital role in providing men and their families with information, comfort and support, calling on his very own personal experience to make a difference in others' lives. I've had the privilege of working alongside Richard at my annual prostate cancer Big Aussie BBQ over many years, and I can't think of a finer recipient of this award. In my letter of support, I described Richard as 'always available to assist any man, or their family, going through their journey with this disease' and said:
Mr Harry and the Limestone Coast prostate cancer support group have achieved much, but possibly their greatest achievement is the fundraising efforts that secured a Trans perineal Biopsy Machine in the South East. Thanks to his efforts, urologists can now test men in the South East of South Australia without the need for them to travel to Adelaide or Melbourne. I have no hesitation in recommending Mr Harry for the Max Gardner Award.
That statement rings as true now as it did then. He is a fantastic Australian.
XLH Awareness Day
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (13:36): Today is XLH Awareness Day. I'd like to acknowledge the work of XLH Australia and, in particular, its president, Ms Sandy Bevc, who's in the gallery with us today—hi, Sandy. Sandy is a constituent of mine who is in Canberra for a parliamentary briefing on XLH, a debilitating rare disease which affects families both in my electorate and across Australia.
X-linked hypophosphatemia is an inherited disorder characterised by low levels of phosphate in the blood. Patients with XLH experience abnormal and often painful bone and dental development, with many developing rickets, presenting with knocked knees or bowing of the legs. It's a rare hereditary disease, with less than one in 20,000 people suffering from XLH in Australia. We have families who are affected by it with, often, three generations of sufferers.
XLH is currently not curable, which is why the work of XLH Australia is particularly important not only to promote community awareness but also to provide support, education and information for affected families and medical professions. This awareness is also important for the medical community, as XLH is often undiagnosed, or misdiagnosed as simply a case of vitamin D deficiency, because of the fact that it is such a very rare genetic condition. Early diagnosis is important for effective treatment to maintain quality of life. A key part of XLH Australia's mission is raising awareness. I want to commend their work to the House.
Insurance
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (13:37): It was only a couple of months ago that I stood up in this place and talked about Townsville's market failure of an essential service. That essential service is insurance. You have to have insurance if you have a loan for your house or strata title property, or if you own a business. We've seen market failure in northern Australia.
A couple of weeks ago, I was very proud to join my northern colleagues to announce a fix which will bring relief for anyone with insurance on property above the Tropic of Capricornia. The $10 billion government reinsurance pool could result in savings of hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars every year for local families. Under this plan, the Australian government will take on the risk that insurers have been using as the excuse for our high premiums, and, in turn, the cost to customers will be reduced. This is one of the biggest issues raised with me in the community. And as a community we banded together with a unified voice, took a solid solution to Canberra and got the result we wanted and so desperately needed—further reduced premiums.
We're also running a new North Queensland Strata Title Resilience pilot program to subsidise the cost of cyclone risk mitigation. Not only will this slash bills; it will make buildings stronger, meaning fewer costly delays during the rebuild phase. Insurance has failed in the north, and this will be a solution.
Deputy Prime Minister
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (13:39): Just when you thought this government couldn't get any more shambolic, it's back to Barnaby. The member for New England is the new old Deputy Prime Minister, gifted to us by the Nats. Immediately, they are emboldened to take us all back to the fifties.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The member for Cooper will pause for a moment. The member for Cooper needs to use the member's proper title.
Ms KEARNEY: I withdraw.
An honourable member: He is the member for New England.
Ms KEARNEY: The member for New England, I said, is the new—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you used his name.
Ms KEARNEY: I did? I apologise. I withdraw that. The first thing we now hear out of the party room is that the Nats are emboldened to have debates such as child care being seen as 'outsourcing parenting'. Here's news: most families can't afford to live on one wage and both parents have to work; kids can't look after themselves. Oh, and women! Women have careers too! Yesterday in question time the Deputy Prime Minister said that women in agriculture are only good enough to be partners with men. Well, here is news: women can do it for themselves, and they do.
It's back to the dark ages on climate—no deal on net zero by 2050. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister couldn't even say the words 'climate change' when asked about his view on net zero. I bet he'll be bringing a lump of coal into the House before we know it. It will be back to that old gem. Here's news: renewable energy is cheap; it brings jobs—thousands of them—like with our plan to upgrade the grid, have wind farms and mine rare earths for batteries. But what are they doing? They're mucking up like spoiled brats over there, trying to get a decent deal with the Murray-Darling Basin. (Time expired)
National Radioactive Waste Management Facility
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (13:40): It is six years ago, plus a month or so, since I first raised the possibility of my home town, even my home paddock, hosting the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility. On Monday night in the Senate we made a great step towards this possible outcome. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the House for supporting the legislation. It took 12 months and it got through in a slightly amended form, but it gives us room to move on. Consequently, there are now three sites back under consideration but, given the government has given a firm commitment that we will not be building this facility in a community that does not want it, that virtually eliminates Wallerberdina in the Flinders Ranges Council area. The other two sites are in my home town of Kimba, in the district council area. The preferred side thus far has been Napandee, and I expect that's what the minister will nominate in good time. But there's a little way to go.
I would like to thank the successive ministers, Macfarlane, Frydenberg, Canavan and Pitt for their work. I would like to thank particularly the Kimba council and the Kimba community for the amount of work and effort and engagement they put into this. When we held our last full plebiscite of the district, there was a 90 per cent vote—which shows you just how engaged people are—with a 62 per cent approval rate. The community has suffered criticism for getting payments for their involvement. But they worked hard for this. They deserve to move ahead, and I congratulate all people concerned. (Time expired)
Federal Integrity Commission
Dr HAINES (Indi) (13:42): When former High Court Justice Mary Gaudron and Tony Fitzgerald put their names to something, you would be a fool to ignore it. Yet that's what this government is doing: ignoring 59 eminent Australians who yesterday sent an open letter to the Prime Minister demanding a strong integrity commission. In December 2018, the Prime Minister promised us an integrity commission, and on 8 September it will be 1,000 days—and 1,000 excuses—since he made that promise. We are still waiting. The government has consulted on its dud model for almost three years. There were 333 submissions in its last round, and only two had anything positive to say. None supported it as a whole. It is simply unsalvageable. The government knows that; the opposition knows that; every Australian knows that.
This government went to the last election promising to deliver an integrity commission, but there were zero dollars and zero staff in this year's budget. The new Attorney-General has admitted we won't see a government bill before at least 2022. That sounds like a broken election promise to me. Nearly nine in 10 Australians want an integrity commission. They don't care who it comes from. So the Prime Minister has two choices: deliver a robust integrity commission now or step aside and let parliament vote on my Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill.There are good MPs on all sides of the House— (Time expired)
Wentworth Electorate: COVID-19
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (13:43): People here would be aware that there were 13 new locally acquired COVID-19 cases reported overnight in New South Wales, which takes us to 31 cases now linked to the so-called Bondi cluster. As a result, I just want constituents and others to be aware that a number of new restrictions have been imposed in New South Wales. If you live and work anywhere in my electorate of Wentworth, including the local government areas of Sydney, Woollahra, Waverley or Randwick, you are now no longer allowed to leave metropolitan Sydney unless the travel is for essential purposes, and that's from 4 pm today for seven days. I know that will interrupt a number of people's school holiday plans and other vacation plans, and I do apologise, but this is too important, obviously. Masks will now be required to be worn indoors at all venues inside Sydney, and we're back to one person per four square metres. Outdoor seating events will now be only at 50 per cent capacity. A particularly important point is that there will no longer be dancing allowed inside. There's a small exception made for weddings, but only for the bridal party, so any other celebrations unfortunately will have to be put on hold for some time.
I did want to urge people who have been to any of the venues of concern, and that includes Westfield Bondi Junction, any time over the last seven days to please go and get tested. There were about 44,000 people tested in Sydney yesterday, which is good. It's up from 28,000. I know the testing staff are working incredibly hard at the Bondi and Rose Bay drive-through clinics, but, please, get tested.
Rotary Australia
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:45): This year marks the 100th anniversary of Rotary in Australia, and in Kingsford Smith I'm proud of the contributions made over many years by our two local Rotary clubs, at Maroubra and Botany Randwick. Our Rotarians help build better lives for those in our community and across the world, and the funds they raise support worthy projects and organisations. It's been a proud history of service.
The Maroubra club was formed in 1960, with a dinner at Randwick Racecourse to celebrate the charter of the new club, while Botany Randwick was only newly formed, last year, with the merger of two clubs with a strong track record of service to our community. Both clubs have supported many causes, but special mention to the Rotary markets that were a regular feature every Sunday in Kingsford. The Rotary Police Officer of the Year Awards have helped to recognise the outstanding service of local women and men in blue.
Our Rotarians have shown great support during the pandemic, with the Maroubra club assisting South Eastern Community Connect to help locals impacted by COVID and the Botany Randwick club were delivering lamingtons on Australia Day for our hardworking local hospital staff on the frontline of the pandemic. Congratulations to Rotary Australia on their 100th anniversary, and thank you to all Rotarians in Kingsford Smith for the wonderful job that you do in supporting our community.
Working with Children Check
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (13:46): As you know I rise in this place often to talk about protecting our kids, particularly from predators online and in our community. And, as chair of the Law Enforcement Committee, I know one of the key weapons we have at our disposal against these predators is to share intelligence across jurisdictions. It came out of the royal commission that every state has a system to check—when you want to work with kids in Queensland, it's the blue card—but these systems don't talk to each other. Through the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, the Morrison government implemented a working with children check national reference system so intelligence can be shared across these state jurisdictions. It went live on 1 July 2019, almost two years ago, yet, despite other states signing up to it and sharing that intelligence to protect our kids, the Queensland Labor government haven't managed to do it. For the two years that they've been stalling they've offered up every excuse. They said COVID was an excuse, despite the system being in place eight months before COVID even existed. They said they didn't have the time to put the legislation through to be part of the system, even though last month they had an entire week of parliamentary sittings when only one bill was discussed. They've said now that they can't do the IT changes, or that they're slow with the IT changes. With all due respect to the member for Herbert, if you can pay $8 million for a State of Origin game—which I love—you can pay $8 million to implement an IT system so, if somebody is refused a working-with-kids check in one state, they're refused it in every other state, and law enforcement can share that intelligence to keep our kids safe. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:48): The Morrison government's failure to roll out the COVID vaccine has just kicked the Blue Mountains and Hawkesbury tourism sector in the teeth. Already they've had a week of cancellations from Queensland and Victorian school holiday-makers who planned on a Christmas in July in our wonderful wintry climate, and now they're facing bans from Sydneysiders who aren't allowed to travel outside the metropolitan area. So holiday bookings are expected to plummet.
Why is this happening? Not enough people are vaccinated, so the highly contagious delta strain is spreading fast. And, who's responsible for the vaccination program? Well, let's hear what Gladys Berejiklian had to say. She said, today: 'One thing we don't have any control over is the number of doses we receive and what those doses are. That is the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. And they're just the facts.' Indeed they are, and the Prime Minister should feel personally responsible for what's happening in his home city. Not only do people report to me that they have a long wait to receive the Pfizer vaccine but they also now have to travel further towards a virus hotspot to get their jab. This government could have done a deal with Moderna, it could have said yes to millions of additional doses of the Pfizer vaccine, but they didn't, and their complacency is hurting our local economy. So much for claiming to be good economic managers. They're a disaster.
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (13:49): I rise to condemn in the strongest possible terms any attempt currently afoot in the Senate to undermine the Murray-Darling Basin agreement. I make it very clear that it is unambiguously the policy of the Morrison government to roll out the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on time and in full, which is 3,200 gigalitres of water. In my first speech, I made it very clear that the Murray River was of vital importance to my home state of South Australia and that, in this chamber, for every moment that I have the honour to represent the people of Sturt here in Parliament House, I will support the Murray-Darling river and the interests of my home state of South Australia at every opportunity. The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has no winners or losers. It is a complex agreement that balances very complex interests, between the environment, the economy and human sustainment. We must stay the course and implement this plan for the future of all those affected—all communities right throughout the Murray-Darling Basin. I make it very, very clear right now to anyone who seeks to undermine this plan that, if they think I will take that lying down, they should think again.
M1 Pacific Motorway
Morrison Government: COVID-19
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (13:51): So you're back from outer space—at least, that was the inquiry—and I look to see you there with that sad look upon your face. I should have changed that stupid lock. I should have made you leave your key, member for New England, if I'd known that you'd be back to bother me. I say, 'Go on, now, go'—I will survive, but I need the M1 done, member for New England. I need the M1 done for the people of my community. The New South Wales government has said that this government—now the Morrison-Joyce government—hasn't delivered enough vaccines and hasn't delivered quarantine. I've lost faith now in the member for Wagga Wagga; he's not delivering the M1 upgrade. So I am saying: deliver this. Deliver vaccines and deliver quarantine, but deliver the M1 upgrade in my electorate. It is the last chokepoint between Sydney and Brisbane—not that you can get out of Sydney at the moment, thanks to this government. Not enough people have been jabbed. We've heard so much gab from this Prime Minister. He is the master of spin and marketing, but he couldn't build a quarantine system to save himself. Now, everyone in my electorate and in Sydney have been impacted by this. All of the small businesses across Australia have been terribly impacted by this. There's only one person to blame, and that's the Prime Minister, now aided and abetted by the new Deputy Prime Minister.
The SPEAKER: I say to the member for Paterson that she needs to address her remarks from her allotted seat.
Ms Swanson interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Yes, yes.
Ms Swanson: Is that the case for everybody, Mr Speaker?
The SPEAKER: Frontbenchers can do that. I've made it very clear. I'm not going to waste the time of members. You've got an allotted seat, and it's very clear. I'm not going to have any argument on the matter.
Climate Change
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:53): I'll resist the temptation to do my Gloria Gaynor impersonation for the benefit of the House, but I will use an advertising slogan, which is, 'Down, down, emissions are down' under the Morrison government. We continue to deliver. Emissions have dropped by 20.1 per cent compared with 2005 levels and continue to decline, according to the latest data. That's because our policy on cutting greenhouse gas emissions is based on outcomes and not on the mad ideology of our opponents. We are focused on the rollout of technology, particularly around renewables, which will deliver sustainable, reliable and affordable energy as part of a network for the country.
We saw that firsthand at the East Beaumaris Kindergarten, which received a $12½ thousand grant from the Morrison government to help them install new solar panels in their community kindergarten. The kindergarten's president, Joanna Jarek, explained that the solar system will reduce their electricity costs by 50 per cent a year and cut their annual greenhouse gas emissions by 5.3 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. The Community Energy Efficiency and Solar Grants program is just a small part of the Morrison government's 'tech to net zero' agenda to install renewables without increasing electricity costs or taxes. For too long, people have thought the solution is that Canberra imposes its solutions down. A Liberal government will always focus on how we empower communities and build the strength from the citizen, the family and the community up.
Parliament House: Sport
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (13:54): This morning, I saw the most important sporting fixture on the parliamentary calendar: the parliamentary state-of-origin touch game! New South Wales faced huge odds—we faced a Queensland team captained by a New South Wales MP, the member for New England. We were severely understrength, missing key stalwarts such as the members for Mitchell, Riverina and Grayndler.
The game had everything. First off, I wish the member for Forde a speedy recovery from his trip to the hospital. We had our first ever sin binning in the history of the comp, and I apologise to the refs: I thoroughly deserved it! Most importantly, we had a mighty New South Wales victory, 3-2, with the final try scored in the last minute. I applaud the try scorers: Ben Leeson from the member for Kingsford Smith's office and Josh Lloyd from the Leader of the Opposition's office—and I was lucky enough to grab the third in the final minute.
Thanks to the referees for doing a great job and thanks to the National Rugby League for putting this game on. It's a really important way of bringing parliamentarians together and emphasising how important sport is to the broader community. I hope this bodes well for Sunday night, where the Blues will be fighting hard to win the series 2-0. All I can say is go the Blues!
Shanks-Markovina, Mr Jordan
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (13:56): There is nothing friendly about the behaviour of Jordan Shanks-Markovina, otherwise known as friendlyjordies. Friendlyjordies depicted Leigh Sales as a rat, Lisa Wilkinson as a monkey, Gina Rinehart as a pig and Deb Frecklington as a cockroach and called Julie Bishop the most evil-looking woman on the planet. He stated that if Gladys Berejiklian were in the animal kingdom she would be a penis snake and he called me a whiny little B-I-T-C-H, and one of the lowest forms of life there is.
Friendlyjordies has intimidated, harassed and racially vilified John Barilaro and is now facing criminal and defamation charges. Of course, ABC's Media Watch are criticising the arrest and claiming that it's a threat to free speech. This place should be deeply concerned about friendlyjordies' abusive and aggressive behaviour, and also about Labor's close ties to friendlyjordies. In fact, just last week the Manager of Opposition Business said, 'There are comments he's made with respect to women that are completely inappropriate and should be condemned.' But he also said, 'I don't then go to a cancel culture argument that therefore, you know, you can't talk to him and you can't look at his material or anything like that.'
I disagree. I am calling on the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party to cut all ties with friendlyjordies right now. The Leader of the Opposition recently said he would act on dangerous or abusive behaviour when it was drawn to his attention, which is exactly what I am doing today.
COVID-19
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (13:57): There are 5.5 million people in New South Wales who are very keen to hear from this Prime Minister about why the vaccine rollout in New South Wales is not a race. The virus is on the move and his failures have left businesses and households in New South Wales at risk. Hotel quarantine is an abject failure. There have been breaches every two weeks. In November it was Adelaide, in December it was Sydney, in January it was Brisbane, in February it was Perth and in June it was Sydney and Brisbane. Last year, we had three outbreaks in Queensland, eight in New South Wales, two in South Australia, five in Victoria and three in Western Australia. It's a rolling disaster. But the government says that it's all going well. How can it be going well if people are going into hotel quarantine healthy and coming out sick?
It's the same story with the vaccine: 70 per cent of aged-care workers still have not been vaccinated. The New South Wales Premier said today that she can't get the vaccines she needs in New South Wales to keep people in New South Wales safe. And while this is all going on, the government is in shambles. The National Party are a rolling maul of destruction and the Prime Minister has been warned, but is too arrogant to listen. Instead of munching on Cornish pasties he should try some humble pie. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The member for Lindsay has about 30 seconds.
Olympic Day
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (13:59): And the winner is Sydney! In fact, it is Penrith, my home town, the Olympic city for the canoeing and rowing events in the Sydney Olympic Games, the city of champions. This is worth celebrating today, Olympic Day. We have one of our own champions, Jessica Fox, going for gold after getting a bronze and a silver medal. She's a hometown girl. She comes from Leonay and Leonay Public School is here today. All of our athletes have fought so hard to get to these Olympic Games during the pandemic. They truly embody the Olympic creed, the most important thing in life is not to triumph but to fight. Aussie, Aussie, Aussie! (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): My question is to the Prime Minister. The New South Wales COVID outbreak is worsening and borders are closing around the country as we head into school holidays. The Prime Minister says 'it's not a race', but the New South Wales Premier said today there is 'a real sense of urgency' and 'until the vast majority of our population is vaccinated these threats will be real'. How many outbreaks will it take before the government fixes the bungled vaccine rollout and creates a safe national quarantine system?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:00): [by video link] I spoke to the Premier earlier today. We spoke specifically about whether there was any need for further vaccine doses to be distributed in New South Wales, and the Premier advised me that she was pleased with the dosage distribution based on observation.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left.
Mr MORRISON: That was her clear advice to me today and that was advised to me in national cabinet by Lieutenant General Frewen earlier in the week. I commend the New South Wales Premier for the way that she is handling the outbreak in New South Wales, the fact that she hasn't gone to lock down Australia's biggest city. She has taken, I think, the very positive decision to keep Sydney open and to keep New South Wales open for its residents and to continue to rely on what is Australia's best contact-tracing system, the one in New South Wales. I can advise that as of today 66.27 per cent or just under two-third of our population over the age of 70 has now been vaccinated and 49.1 per cent of those over 50 have received their first doses as have 27.4 per cent of those aged over 16. In the last 24 hours 140,819 doses have been administered. We are now at 6.86 million doses having been administered in Australia. It might suit the politics of the Leader of the Opposition to run down Australia's performance. It may suit the politics of the Leader of the Opposition to undermine Australia's efforts as we lead the world when it comes to managing COVID in this country.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Yes, Mr Speaker, on relevance. The question went to the Prime Minister's responsibility—his responsibility.
The SPEAKER: No, the Leader of the Opposition will cease debating points of order. I made that point yesterday and I am going to say, in response to the question, it was a very long series of questions with a series of claims. The Prime Minister is in order and I've been listening to him carefully. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition needs to understand that carping negativity is not a substitute for policy positions. The opposition has been invited for more than a year to join the government in our efforts to combat the virus. But throughout the pandemic they have chosen, time and again, just to pursue political pointscoring, rather than joining and supporting the national effort. We saw in the Lowy poll today that 95 per cent of Australians believe that Australia has handled this pandemic well. The evidence shows that when you look at the case numbers in Australia. The fatality rate in Australia could have been 30,000 more were it not for the steps taken by governments, including our government, to ensure that Australia has positioned itself as one of the best countries in the world as we move through this pandemic. The opposition seems to believe that, when there is a global pandemic, there can't be transmission of a virus. That is a foolish position and a misleading position. We've taken a realistic approach and are working with governments around the country to keep Australians safe, to protect lives and to protect livelihoods. The opposition continues to focus on politics and pointscoring, rather than just supporting a national effort. I commend Lieutenant General Frewen for the great job he's doing in ensuring that we are moving as quickly as we can to vaccinate as many people as we can.
COVID-19: Economy
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (14:04): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please inform the House how the Morrison government is working to secure Australia's economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in our energy and resources sector? Is the Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:05): [by video link] I thank the member for Moncrieff for her question. Australia has been one of the standout nations in the world in terms of how we've protected not only the lives of Australians but also their livelihoods. We are one of just two countries that recently attended the G7-plus, together with South Korea, that could say our economy was bigger after going through this pandemic than it was before. In Australia there are more people employed today at this point than there were before the pandemic started. And this has been recognised by Australians. The Lowy poll today shows that 79 per cent of Australians are now optimistic or very optimistic about Australia's economic performance. That has been as a result of the government working to get the balance right to not only ensure we were managing the health impacts of the pandemic but also ensure we had a growing economy.
We can't take that for granted. That's why this year's budget was our plan to ensure we secured Australia's economic recovery. There are many elements to that plan—lower taxes, infrastructure spending, investment in skills and our manufacturing sectors. But, importantly, it is also about cutting red tape so businesses can get on and invest, particularly in major projects, and ensuring that we have affordable, reliable, lower-emissions energy to power particularly our heavy industries in the new energy economy of the future.
It is incredibly disappointing that the Labor Party, in the parliament, is opposing our efforts to make it easier for major investments in resource projects, particularly in states like Western Australia, by opposing our changes to the EPBC Act. Even the Labor Premier of Western Australia and all Labor premiers in this country are calling on the Labor opposition to support this bill to ensure we can improve investment. But they stand there stubbornly on the basis of ideology. But it doesn't end there. Their opposition last night in voting against lower-emissions technologies like carbon capture and storage goes completely against the efforts this country is making to ensure that we move towards lower-emissions technologies in the future. The member for Hunter has described the Labor Party's position as 'ideological madness'. That is exactly what it is.
This is a Labor Party obsessed with carping negativity, opposing the government's efforts to keep our economy strong through the pandemic. What we have been able to achieve as a country has not been with the support of the opposition. Their approach has just been negativity and ideology. That is not going to get us to a lower-emissions future. It's not going to get resource projects approved in our states and territories and at a Commonwealth level. The Labor Party needs to saddle up with the economic improvements we're seeking to put in place to bring Australia out of the COVID-19 pandemic strongly. Instead, what we are getting is negativity and opposition.
Mr Stephen Jones interjecting—
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Whitlam and the member for Isaacs! I think you know what's going to happen if you keep interjecting. Can I also point out it's particularly pointless to interject at a television screen!
Mr Albanese: Or Sky before dark!
The SPEAKER: Maybe they do it at home, but there's no need to do it here.
Mr Albanese: They do—and I do too!
COVID-19: Vaccination
COVID-19: Quarantine
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): My question is to the Prime Minister. Premiers and chief ministers around the country have done the heavy lifting fighting the COVID virus. Labor and Liberal premiers are giving the Prime Minister clear warnings about the urgency of the vaccine rollout, which stands at three per cent, and the need for a safe national system of quarantine. What will it take for this Prime Minister to fix his bungled vaccine rollout and establish a safe national system of quarantine?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:09): [by video link] The government has had two clear jobs through this pandemic. The first of those is to save lives, and the second is to save livelihoods. Our job has been to save lives and to save livelihoods. We know that, were it not for the actions of the government working together with governments around this country, our experience as compared to those of like countries around the world—more than 30,000 Australians would have perished during this crisis. That didn't occur because of the actions taken on our watch. In addition to that, we've saved livelihoods to ensure that Australia's economy is stronger today than before the pandemic hit, and, in addition to that, there are more Australians employed today than before the pandemic hit. Now, there have been many measures we have put in place to secure that, but those have included an investment of more than $310 billion in health initiatives as well as economic supports to achieve those results.
Reference is made to the actions of the states, and I commend the actions of the states. In fact, as Prime Minister I called the states together into the national cabinet to ensure that our actions were coordinated, and one of the first actions we took as a national cabinet was to agree to put in place a system of hotel quarantine around this country. That has been a key measure in ensuring that Australia has been able to have the success that it has. Breaches from any form of quarantine in a global pandemic are inevitable, and that is why the further rings of containment with contact tracing, social distancing and other measures are vital.
Of course, the vaccination program, as I have already indicated, has now reached some 6.86 million, two-thirds almost, of Australians aged over 70 and the most vulnerable populations; they have already received their first dose, and more than a quarter of Australians aged over 16 have received their first dose. And, as the vaccination program continues to escalate, as we move from the AstraZeneca vaccine to the Pfizer vaccines, which were timed for their delivery, because of international supply constraints, in the second half of the year, that will continue to roll out.
We've also invested half a billion dollars in the quarantine facilities in the Northern Territory, which was recommended by the Halton review. In addition to that, we're partnering with the states, particularly Victoria right now, on the development of additional facilities to supplement the hotel quarantine program, not to replace it. So the actions that our government has taken have saved lives and have saved livelihoods. That has been our focus. The politics in this have been left to the opposition, who have sought only to undermine and engage in carping negativity, rather than engage in the national project, which this government has led to the great advantage of Australians.
Employment
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:12): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the Morrison-Joyce government plans to strengthen regional Australia and create jobs? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of alternative approaches on regional Australia?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) (14:12): Thank you very much to the member for Flynn. Obviously the member for Flynn is a powerhouse in the mining industry and in the coal industry, where so many jobs are. We're unashamed to stand behind those coalminers, unlike the people on the other side. The member for Flynn knows about the work we are doing on the Bruce Highway as does the member for Wide Bay and how important that is. And the member for Flynn and the member for Capricornia would know about the work we are doing on Rookwood Weir and the thousands of jobs that will be provided by that. I acknowledge the member for Capricornia and the hard work that she has done being a person—a lady—who brings jobs to her area and supports her area.
Jobs are very important. We see that in the Inland Rail. We see it because this side understands clearly how agricultural and mining exports put product on the boat that brings the cash in so we can buy the gear, buy the standard of living that you experience. It's so vitally important that we keep reminding the Labor Party—who once upon a time represented labourers, but that's a long time in the past—how important it is that they actually authentically go out and stand behind the coalminers of the Hunter Valley. I know the member for Shortland has got to do a lot of work in that space of getting out and actually representing the coalminers and maybe taking a bit of a lead from the gentleman who sits up behind him.
But you also asked about alternative policies. I've been a bit perplexed lately because the other day we were trying to get through on the ARENA fund, which supports renewable energy, an extension, more money into it, and guess who knocked it down?
A government member interjecting—
Mr JOYCE: Yes, you know! Guess who knocked it down? But there are people who've read the Book of Revelation and they reside up the back there, and I want to go through a couple of their quotes. This is the member for McMahon:
The Senate just voted to over-rule Angus Taylor's regulation to waterdown ARENA's commitment to renewable energy. The LNP keeps attacking ARENA …
And Joel Fitzgibbon, the member for Hunter, said, 'I call a spade a spade, and my colleagues won't thank me—no, they won't thank me—but this isn't very clever.' You're not very clever, you see. This isn't very clever. I'm sure we're supposed to win. But the best one is the member for Grayndler: 'But we won't agree to the renewable energy agencies like ARENA, the clean energy fund and supporting things like hydrogen'—which your ALP policy platform actually says you do support. But it is all right, because we had the member for Hunter saying the government was proposing to put more money into something they were already doing. The Labor Party is all at sea on jobs, and maybe the Labor Party is two parties.
MOTIONS
COVID-19
Mr ALBANESE ( Grayndler — Leader of the Opposition ) ( 14:15 ): I seek leave to move the following motion:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) there is a global pandemic;
(b) there have been at least 25 COVID outbreaks from hotel quarantine;
(c) fewer than three per cent of Australians are fully vaccinated;
(d) the Prime Minister had two jobs this year, to rollout the vaccine and establish a safe, national system of quarantine, and he has bungled both jobs;
(e) the outbreak in Sydney is worsening by the hour;
(f) new restrictions are being imposed on businesses and households;
(g) borders are slamming shut as Australia heads into school holidays;
(h) the Prime Minister says the vaccine rollout is not a race; and
(i) the NSW Premier said today "New South Wales has had a real sense of urgency in relation to the vaccine rollout. Until the vast majority of our population is vaccinated these threats will be real and ongoing"; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to urgently fix his bungled vaccine rollout and establish a safe, national system of quarantine.
Leave not granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) there is a global pandemic;
(b) there have been at least 25 COVID outbreaks from hotel quarantine;
(c) fewer than three per cent of Australians are fully vaccinated;
(d) the Prime Minister had two jobs this year, to rollout the vaccine and establish a safe, national system of quarantine, and he has bungled both jobs;
(e) the outbreak in Sydney is worsening by the hour;
(f) new restrictions are being imposed on businesses and households;
(g) borders are slamming shut as Australia heads into school holidays;
(h) the Prime Minister says the vaccine rollout is not a race; and
(i) the NSW Premier said today "New South Wales has had a real sense of urgency in relation to the vaccine rollout. Until the vast majority of our population is vaccinated these threats will be real and ongoing"; and
(2) therefore, calls on the Prime Minister to urgently fix his bungled vaccine rollout and establish a safe, national system of quarantine.
Mr Speaker, we needed more jabbings and less stabbings, but what we've got from this government—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:18): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the Leader of the Opposition be no further heard.
The House divided. [14:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (14:23): Is the motion seconded?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:23): Seconded. People are at risk because of their incompetence—and they're afraid to debate it. They're afraid to have a debate here on the floor of the parliament.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:23): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no further heard.
The House divided. [14:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (14:26): The question now is that the motion moved by the honourable Leader of the Opposition be disagreed to.
The House divided. [14:27]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (14:28): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer please remind the House of the Morrison government's ongoing success in securing our economic recovery to ensure that Australian families can benefit from extra jobs and lower taxes, and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:28): I thank the member for Ryan and acknowledge his experience as a councillor in the Brisbane City Council, the largest council across Australia, where he performed a very important role—Treasurer of the Brisbane City Council. He understands, as we understand on this side of the House, that with COVID-19 Australia has been hit by the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression. The Morrison government made a commitment of $291 billion. That is more than twice what all the states and territories have committed combined. The result has been the creation of nearly one million new jobs since May last year. The unemployment rate fell to 5.1 per cent. There were 115,000 jobs created last month, and 85 per cent of those jobs were full-time jobs. Sixty per cent of those jobs went to women. In our March quarter national accounts we saw economic growth of 1.8 per cent, beating market expectations. We saw farm GDP at its strongest numbers in seven years. We saw machinery and equipment with the strongest numbers in 17 years and housing investment with the strongest number in 17 or 18 years as well, off the back of our programs. Indeed, the last three quarters of economic growth have been the strongest in more than 50 years. We saw Standard & Poor's say that Australia's response to this crisis has been swift and decisive, and we saw them affirm our AAA credit rating. Australia is one of only nine countries in the world to have a AAA credit rating from the three leading credit rating agencies.
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
Mr FRYDENBERG: I hear the interjections from the member for Rankin. He and the Labor Party promised, at the last election, higher taxes on families, whereas the coalition delivered lower taxes on families. The Labor Party at the last election promised higher taxes on businesses, and we have delivered lower taxes on businesses. The Labor Party at the last election promised higher taxes on investment, and we have delivered lower taxes on investment. The Labor Party at the last election promised higher taxes on housing, and we have delivered the programs and policies that have seen record numbers of first home buyers get into the market. And, at the last election, the Labor Party promised higher taxes on superannuation, and we have delivered policies which are cutting the fees for people with superannuation. So we on this side of the House are cutting taxes and creating jobs, in stark contrast to those opposite.
Morrison Government
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:31): My question is to the Leader of the House. This parliament has been used for 120 years to debate the issues of the day. If, on the day, as new cases are coming out and borders are closing, the government won't accept a debate in the middle of a global pandemic, how bad does a crisis have to be before the government will allow this parliament to be used as a parliament?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:32): I've been in this parliament for a few years now, and I've seen a few debates. I've seen a few governments in action. I can remember very clearly when the Labor Party was sitting on this side of the House. We were denied, day after day—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr DUTTON: And I'll tell you what hasn't been accepted by those opposite. What hasn't been accepted by those opposite is that they lost the last election. By definition, having lost the last election, they now sit on that side without the numbers in this chamber. So don't whinge about it! Don't whinge about it; it's a result of your own failings. You went to the last election—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr DUTTON: You went to the last election promising taxes on every Australian and you wonder why they voted you out. You went to the last election promising to restart boats and to surrender our sovereignty on borders. No wonder the Australian public rejected you. As we move around the country now and speak to Australians from one corner of the country to the other, I'll tell you what Australians are saying, Mr Speaker: 'Thank God Bill Shorten is not the Prime Minister of this country.' That's exactly what people are saying.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. Members on both sides—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides! The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: Yes, Mr Speaker. The minister is misleading parliament. People can't move around this country.
The SPEAKER: No, there's no point of order.
Mr Albanese: That's what we want to debate.
The SPEAKER: There's no point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is— I call the Leader of the House. I was about to intervene. I'd ask the Leader of the House to be relevant to the question. The question was a procedural one, and he was asked it in his capacity as the Leader of the House. It wasn't an opportunity for a wide-ranging critique or a history lesson on elections past.
Mr DUTTON: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for allowing the member for Moreton to stay here and enjoy my contribution as well. It's a much greater punishment than if you were to send him out of the chamber, so I'm happy he's here. To go to the very point raised in the question from the honourable member opposite, the Australian public has seen the government's response to COVID. And I'll tell you what: Australians look at what is happening around the world and are grateful that we are living in the country that we are today. We made a decision in the National Security Committee of Cabinet over 12 months ago to lock our country down and to close our border with China—the greatest decision we have made during the period of COVID because it stopped that virus coming to our country. At the same time, the Prime Minister has demonstrated the leadership to stand up with the premiers to make decisions in relation to the health system that have saved this country tens of thousands of deaths. Do you think we're going to be lectured by those opposite, with their cheap political—
The SPEAKER: If the Leader of the House could pause for a second. In the time remaining, if he wishes to continue his answer, he has to address himself to the procedural—
Mr DUTTON: I'm happy to stop there.
The SPEAKER: You've concluded?
Mr DUTTON: I think I've made my point.
Mr Albanese: Speaking of Russia!
An honourable member: What does that mean?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, if you could, firstly, not interject and, secondly, not interject in that fashion when I'm about to call someone. It might give the wrong impression to people listening on radio.
Commonwealth Integrity Commission
Dr HAINES (Indi) (14:36): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, on 30 December 2018, you promised Australia a robust federal integrity commission. On 8 September, it will be 1,000 days since you made that promise. It became your election promise. Australians are still waiting, Prime Minister. Will you commit to passing a robust bill before 1,000 days are up on 8 September?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:36): [by video link] I thank the member for the question. The Minister representing the Attorney-General will add, I imagine, to my answer. What I would note is that the government has already moved to expand the jurisdiction of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity from January of this year. ACLEI was given jurisdiction over four additional agencies—the ATO, ASIC, APRA and the ACCC. In the 2021-22 budget, ACLEI was funded a further $54.3 million over the forward estimates to support its expanded jurisdiction. That includes $51.9 million in operating funding and $2.4 million in capital funding to establish an office in Melbourne. Draft legislation to establish the Commonwealth Integrity Commission was released for public consultation on 2 November of last year, and submissions closed on 12 February of this year. That consultation is critical to this process. After the government has considered feedback on that draft legislation, we will look to finalise the model and determine likely support before introducing legislation into the parliament. The Minister representing the Attorney-General may wish to add to that, but, if he believes that covers the matter, then that would be my response.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (14:38): I do believe that the Prime Minister's excellent answer covers the matter.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the Minister please update the House on how the government is helping to keep Australians safe from COVID-19?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:38): I want to thank the member for Wentworth particularly for his work in encouraging the people in his electorate and across New South Wales to be vaccinated. During the course of today, we expect that the 2,000,000th person in New South Wales will have been vaccinated. In terms of the work already done, the New South Wales government has vaccinated 710,000 people across the state and the Commonwealth government, in partnership with GPs and through our work with aged and disability care, has vaccinated over 1¼ million people. Around the world, though, we know that the pandemic continues to rage. In the last 24 hours, there were over 400,000 cases officially reported worldwide. There were over 9,600 lives lost. That means that this year there have been approximately 2,080,000 lives officially lost to COVID-19. In Australia we remain in the almost unimaginable position of having lost no people this year who caught COVID and passed from COVID in this nation. In terms of keeping Australians safe, there could not be a stronger test.
But I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that, shortly before question time, the National Incident Room informed me that the last remaining person in ICU with COVID has left ICU. There is no Australian at this moment with COVID in any ICU anywhere in Australia. Of course, any case could be fatal. That's why this is such an ongoing national challenge in the face of a global pandemic. And that's why all of the things that we have done together as a nation from the beginning—the closure of the borders, which the Leader of the House mentioned, the testing, the tracing, the distancing and the vaccinations—have worked. They have worked together to protect this nation on a scale and in a way that is almost unparalleled across the world.
As we speak, at this point, as the Prime Minister mentioned, in the last 24 hours, there were 140,800 vaccinations. Over 6.86 million vaccinations have occurred in Australia, and, critically, that means 49 per cent of people who are over 50 years of age have been vaccinated. Over 66 per cent of those over 70 years of age have been vaccinated. And 100 per cent of aged-care facilities around the country have had first doses, and approximately 99 per cent of aged-care facilities around the country have had second doses. These are the things that are keeping Australia safe. It's a global pandemic with catastrophic results outside of our borders. It's a challenge inside our borders, but we have kept Australians safe, and we will continue to do that.
Murray-Darling Basin
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (14:41): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. National Party amendments before the Senate right now block the additional 450 billion litres allocated for the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. After only a day in the job, why is the Deputy Prime Minister's first priority attacking the health of the rivers and the regional communities that depend on them by shredding the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) (14:42): I thank the honourable member for her question, and note the process that was facilitated to bring about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. At the time, myself and the then minister, the member for Watson, had a choice between working together or the Labor Party working with the Greens, which would have brought a disastrous outcome for people on the river.
What we also note is that that was a section on the 450. Whilst I was the minister, I worked with that proposition. But I understand completely the concerns that are held. I was only recently talking to the member for Nicholls about the issues that are so important to those towns, including that we show them security too. There is an issue here that people are worried about the security of the river, but they're also worried about the security of their jobs. Jobs are so vitally important, if we are to show these people that we care for them in the regional towns. And it's not just farmers. It is the hairdressers. It is the tyre shops. It is the grocery shops. It's the people who live in the member for Mallee's seat. It's the people who live in the member for Nicholls's seat. It's the people who live in the member for Farrer's seat. It's the people who live in the Riverina, the member for Riverina's seat. We have an obligation to these people as well, to make sure that they are not forgotten in Canberra.
What I see, from our colleagues in the Senate, is they are making sure that these people know that the Nationals are hearing them, and are making sure that they are doing their very best to show that their jobs in these regional towns are just as important as the jobs in Adelaide, just as important as the jobs in Sydney. Because it's these people who have gone out to Mildura, who have gone out to Wagga, who have gone out to Griffith, who have gone to these places where other people won't go—these are the people putting product on the boats, and feeding our nation. They are feeding our nation in such a way that we can have the standard of living that we have here today. Although we might not see them, we respect absolutely the job they do.
So, if you're asking me why the Nationals in the Senate are making sure that these people understand that we hear them and respect their views, that is because that is what the Nationals' job is.
Climate Change
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (14:44): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is focused on technology, not taxes, to reduce emissions? Is the minister aware of any approaches standing in the way of this?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:45): I thank the member for Reid for her question. She knows, as we all do on this side of the House, that the way to reduce emissions is through technology, not taxation, and through innovation, not elimination. That's our focus. That's why we're investing in our technology investment road map—with $20 billion, driving $80 billion of overall investment and 160,000 jobs. We're positioning Australia for success by investing in low-emissions technologies that will protect our industries—indeed, grow those industries—while creating new ones. We need our best and brightest minds working on that, in organisations like ARENA. That's why we are absolutely committed to expanding ARENA's mandate to support investment in the full range of technologies that will reduce emissions right across every sector in the Australian economy. We shouldn't be restricting ARENA, we should be enabling it and expanding it.
I am asked: what is standing in the way? And I'm looking at it. Last night Labor cheered, clapped and patted themselves on the back by voting against jobs. They stood in the way of $192 million of investment in low-emissions technologies—in technologies like carbon capture and storage and investments in healthy soils, in hydrogen and in electric-charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. Worse than that, they voted against programs that would create 1,400 jobs. ARENA welcomed the changes. They said it was a new era for ARENA. But I'll tell you who didn't welcome it—the member for Hunter. He called it ideological craziness, as we've already heard. 'Ideological craziness,' he said on 2GB this morning. But this is what the Labor Party have become—cosying up to their coalition partners, the Greens.
That's not our approach. Every day in this place we support agriculture. We support heavy industry. We support the transport sector and the resources sector. We know that, when it comes to reducing emissions, it's about technology, not taxes. But the member for McMahon, the shadow minister, has never seen a tax he didn't like.
Women: Employment
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (14:48): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the government planning any policy changes to increase female workforce participation in regional Australia? Or does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with one of his government colleagues, who says women using child care, and I quote, 'are outsourcing parenting'?
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Deputy Prime Minister: I've had to address these matters before. Ministers can't be asked about statements of other members of the House. It's clear in the Practice. The first part of the question, though, is completely in order.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) (14:48): I do support child care. I absolutely support child care. In fact, I'm one of the beneficiaries of child care, and I live in a regional area—and it is important for either parent that takes on a primary caring role. At times it is the case that both have to go out to work to make the payments—to pay for the house, to pay for the car—and this is a vital component of how our society works. We're lucky we can do it.
The changes that are actually improving it have been brought in by this side of the parliament. It's this side of the parliament that has understood that concept and it is this side of the parliament that is championing that concept. People at home, whether they're mothers at home or fathers at home, had to wait until we were on the Treasury benches for these issues to be dealt with. I might ask the minister, if she wishes, to add to my comments.
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (14:50): On this side of the House we firmly believe in choice. If families want to use the childcare system, they can; if they want to have a stay-at-home parent, they can. In some instances, parents don't have that choice, because both parents need to go into the workforce. In that instance, we need to provide affordable quality child care. That's exactly what this government has been doing. We've increased childcare subsidies by 77 per cent since we came to office. In the most recent budget, we added an additional $1.7 billion of subsidy, particularly targeting families with two or more children in child care. Why is that? Because, if you have two or more children in child care, that's where the cost really start to add up. It's a targeted approach. It will help 250,000 families across the country. My question to those opposite, who are interjecting and shouting out—
The SPEAKER: Minister, you don't get to ask questions; you only get to answer them.
Mr TUDGE: I put this to the opposition: will you back our legislation which we will be introducing—
The SPEAKER: No. The minister—
Mr TUDGE: I will re-state this. Tomorrow we will be introducing legislation to enact these additional new changes which will benefit 250,000 families. I will be looking for support from those opposite for this bill. Declare where you will stand, because 250,000 families rely on the support of this bill to get through this parliament.
Resources Industry
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (14:52): My question is to the Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia. Will the minister update the House on the strength of the resource sector and the plan the Morrison government is implementing to streamline and cut random green tape, creating jobs in regional communities? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources, Water and Northern Australia) (14:52): I thank the honourable member for Herbert. He turned out for Queensland this morning in the State of Origin but he always turns out for his electorate and the people he represents. The member for Herbert understands what the resources sector does for our economy and for jobs. We expect that exports of resources and energy could break all Australian records and go through $300 billion by the end of this financial year. In the midst of a COVID outbreak, a worldwide pandemic, they are helping to hold together our economy and deliver jobs.
We want the resources sector to do more. That's why we're looking to cut red and green tape. That's why we have legislation before the House, looking to streamline approval processes, looking for one-touch options. We're working with state and territory governments to make that a reality. What does it mean for Australia? It means that projects can get approval. Why should they have to have two layers for what is effectively the same level of approval? Why should they have those costs and delays when we can have those jobs and that investment in Australia right now, earlier than before?
There are those that have a different view. I note an editorial from the West Australian. There is a screaming headline here. It says that someone's WA credentials are on the line. I know you're interested, Mr Speaker, in who that might be. He might be just over here. He's pretty close to us—not far away. The headline literally says, 'Albanese's WA credentials are on the line'. Why is that? Because Premier McGowan supports our position. He supports what we are trying to do in Western Australia. Western Australia is the big resource state, where there are a lot of jobs and a lot of investment; it relies on these things. Premier Mark McGowan and Prime Minister Scott Morrison are working together, but so far they've left federal Labor opposition leader Anthony Albanese on the outer. Mr McGowan said on Monday that his government has been calling for the proposed changes for 18 months. So I say to those opposite: there is a time to step up, and that time is now. We need this investment. We need this investment in Australia.
I go on. The editorial says that he needs to ensure his party backs the changes, and I'd say to those opposite this is critical to what we are trying to do. We want more investment in Australia. We want processes that ensure that investment comes here and that drive jobs into our country. What we know is there are a lot of others who are onboard, even in Victoria. We put out what is known as the acreage release—offshore oil and gas, exploration, supported by the Victorian government. We have the shadow minister saying she supports the resources sector and supports gas exploration, yet I have a letter from the member for Corangamite—it was very straightforward—saying, 'I encourage you to rethink the decision and not enable oil and gas exploration.' So do you support the sector or not? Are you with those hardworking men and women or not? Clearly those opposite are not. (Time expired)
Deputy Prime Minister
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:55): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. This week Steph Ryan, the Deputy Leader of the Nationals in Victoria, has said, 'I've never made any secret of the fact that I think Barnaby Joyce's previous actions didn't really make him eligible for the top job.' Why do so many regional Australian women who know the Deputy Prime Minister say he's unfit for the job?
The SPEAKER: I don't believe that question is in order. It doesn't go to his ministerial responsibilities. I made those rulings yesterday. I won't detain the House. If the member for Ballarat wishes to read those for further information, she can.
Great Barrier Reef
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on the world-leading approach that the Morrison government is taking with the management of our Great Barrier Reef?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (14:56): It's great to take a question from the fabulous Reef envoy, the member for Leichhardt, and I am so glad to hear he's going around again, that he's coming back into this parliament. I know it wouldn't be the same place without him. He fights tirelessly for his constituents of Leichhardt and, indeed, for the reef.
The Morrison government is deeply committed to protecting the vast and magnificent Great Barrier Reef. The centrepiece of our reef protection efforts is the Reef 2050 Plan, jointly developed with the Queensland government. The focus of this plan is about supporting the reef's health and building its resilience in the face of climate change.
The Australian and Queensland governments, between them, are investing more than $3 billion in the Reef 2050 Plan. Now, those are big numbers, but what they mean on the ground is practical and effective. It means we can continue the conservation work with sea turtles at Mon Repos and Raine Island, changing the temperature of the sand to get a better balance of male turtles. It means we've got five vessels out on the water spearing crown-of-thorns starfish, intervening to protect our precious marine ecosystems. It means that we have world-leading science under our Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program that looks at building heat resistance in corals, and our practical action on emissions reduction goes hand in hand with our practical action on reef protection and climate adaptation. We are leading the way.
On the reef, I have noted this week, we will strongly oppose a draft World Heritage Committee recommendation that the Great Barrier Reef be singled out for 'in danger' listing, because every reef is under pressure from climate change and no reef is better managed than the Great Barrier Reef. So for the UNESCO draft decision to single out Australia is unreasonable and a subversion of process, and we will fight it. We will fight it for the communities who live along the reef. The proposed listing fails to recognise the enormous efforts of traditional owners, farmers, tourism operators and communities up and down the reef catchment.
My message today is that the Morrison government stands with you. I'm not sure about the Labor Party and where they are on Team Australia with a commitment that we need to demonstrate internationally how we manage the reef. The jeering and sneering is of course about climate change questions, and the Labor Party should know that they are correctly dealt with in a different convention. What the World Heritage convention says is how you manage your World Heritage listed properties, and no-one can argue that that gold standard of management is absolutely the approach that Australia has to the Great Barrier Reef. And I expect every member of this place to support our effort to reverse this decision and to bring our reef into the international community. (Time expired)
Deputy Prime Minister
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (14:59): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. I refer to his answer yesterday regarding comments by the Western Australian Nationals leader about his ability to work with the women of regional Australia. How can the Deputy Prime Minister do his job as regional development minister when so many regional women who know him well object to him holding high office?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) (15:00): I thank the honourable member for her question, and I return to my answers of yesterday. I acknowledge that, in a whole range of areas, there are people who may dislike me and there are people who like me. That's part of politics. I'm sure there are blokes who dislike me as well. That is part of life, but, as we go through life, we always try to learn from our mistakes and become a better person.
Education
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (15:00): My question is to the Minister for Education and Youth. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is working to ensure that the proposed Australian Curriculum will achieve a higher overall standard of educational achievement in Australia, uphold Australian values and encourage greater engagement in civic life?
Mr TUDGE (Aston—Minister for Education and Youth) (15:01): I thank the member for Berowra for his question. We live in the greatest country in the world. We are one of the wealthiest, most free, safest and most egalitarian countries on earth. We offer unlimited opportunities for those people who want to work hard and get ahead. We are so attractive as a nation that millions of people across the world have immigrated to this country. They have come to our shores to make this nation, Australia, their home. But you would not think that this is such a great country if you were reading the draft history curriculum which is out for consultation as part of the review of the national curriculum today. In fact, when you read the full 84 pages of the draft history curriculum, there are not many great things said about our country at all. Anzac Day itself is presented as a contested idea. If you read through the full 1,700 pages of the draft curriculum, you wouldn't necessarily come out with a deep understanding that we are the fantastic liberal democracy that we are today.
We have to do better than this. The national curriculum goes to the heart of what children are taught—not just the content but also the values which are embedded in that and the standards which come about from this. We shouldn't have a negative view of our history. We absolutely have had tough times in the past, which we need to reconcile ourselves with, and students should learn about that. But, fundamentally, students should come out of school with a love of this nation and what we have achieved together. They should understand our deep Indigenous history, they should understand our deep British foundations which set the scene for our great democracy, built on Judeo-Christian values, and they should understand our fantastic multicultural character, which has come about in previous decades because of waves of immigrants arriving here.
Equally, the curriculum needs to lift our overall education standards for this country because, over the last 20 years, sadly, our education standards have declined. A 15-year-old today is 12 months behind where a 15-year-old was 20 years ago. The curriculum sets the benchmark standards, and we want to see those standards lift. There have been some positive improvements overall in the draft national curriculum, but we have to do better, and that's what we're going to be looking for as I work with the states and territories to see that achieved. I hope that those opposite will equally share this vision that we have for this national curriculum—for higher standards to be set, for a love of country to be embedded in the history and the civics, and for people to come out wanting to participate in our great— (Time expired)
Electric Vehicles
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:04): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. The New South Wales government has committed to substantial subsidies for electric vehicles. Does the transport minister believe this will kill the weekend?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) (15:04): I have great pleasure in taking this question. Quite obviously, if he were going to help electric cars he would have supported the ARENA legislation. But, of course, the Labour Party last night did not support it, and there's a reason for that. I'd like to quote the honourable member for Grayndler and the honourable member for Hunter, because this goes to the reasoning on how we finance electric cars. The member for Grayndler said:
… we don't think that carbon capture and storage should come at the expense of using the existing renewable energy frameworks such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation …
But the member for Hunter said:
… and it's regrettable that Labor is now opposing $1.2 billion worth of public investment—
that could go to things such as electric cars—
in carbon-reducing innovation simply because we don't like the entities being used to spend the additional money.
Then he said, and this is the clincher:
Now, that is ideological craziness.
So I think the member for McMahon should be asking the member for Grayndler about his ideological craziness, because the member for McMahon himself said the Senate just voted—
The SPEAKER: The Deputy Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: On relevance—
The SPEAKER: Yes, I thought that would be the point of order. I think I can rule on it.
Mr Albanese: The minister gave a quote about the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
The SPEAKER: You can resume your seat. The difficulty is with the question. The question was a short question. It was a succinct question, but the problem with it is that it's unanswerable when the question is: do you believe this'll kill the weekend?
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: And you've just made my point: it's not a question; it's a political statement. So I'm not going to insist on a yes/no answer. I will say to the Deputy Prime Minister: there wasn't any question about alternatives and he just needs to confine himself now to the policy matter that was in the question. But that's why I allowed some latitude. If you want me to strictly enforce the rules on questions, I'm happy to start, but I don't think you'll be very happy with it. The Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr JOYCE: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will go to the point of what will kill the weekend. What will kill the weekend for the member for Grayndler most of the time is the member for Hunter. That kills the weekend for him; it actually destroys the weekend for him. I think what kills the weekend for many people on the other side is that they're on the other side. That's what hurts them on the weekend. What other issues might kill the weekend for them? Well, of course, there is a whole bevy of reasons for frustrations that have built up over such a long period of time, because they have as their leader the man who's about to go on long service leave for good. They're going to be there forever. That is going to hurt the weekend.
The SPEAKER: I'll just say to the Deputy Prime Minister: you've concluded your answer. I think we've agreed on that at precisely the same time.
Regional Australia
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (15:08): My question is to the Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison-Joyce government is improving the lives of regional Australians?
Mr COULTON (Parkes—Minister for Regional Health, Regional Communications and Local Government) (15:08): I'd like to thank the member for Mallee for her question. There's no doubt that there's no better place to live in the world at the moment than regional Australia. The people in regional Australia, whether they work in the health sector, they work in local government or they deliver services right across the country, are doing a great job of keeping us safe. This government recognises the importance of having the facilities, the services and the personnel to continue that growth, and I'm very proud to say that this government, with the Stronger Rural Health Strategy, has seen an extra 700 doctors and an extra 700 nurses delivered across regional Australia in the last two years. We've seen, through the John Flynn vocational training scheme, a doubling in the number of training places for junior doctors so that they get experience in regional areas. We see that the Murray-Darling Medical Schools Network, where we have country people training in country areas to deliver services to country towns, is oversubscribed with people wanting to be part of that.
This week is the Australian local government conference, and councils from right around Australia are here discussing their issues. I am pleased to say that during the pandemic we have partnered with local government, through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program, and those people in those 537 councils all around Australia have been providing stimulus, in partnership with this government, to make sure that those small towns, villages and regional centres right across the country have been kept out of the pandemic and have been put in a stronger position so that they can continue to be the economic powerhouse of this country.
Telecommunications is incredibly important. I am pleased to say that this government has funded 1,200 towers under the Black Spot Program. Over 950 of those are up and running. What I'm really excited about is the Regional Connectivity Program, where, along with the major telecommunications companies, start-up companies—smaller, innovative companies—are delivering bespoke levels of data. Regional Australia has the capacity to grow because of connectivity. They are innovators, they are inventors and they lead the world in innovation, whether it is in agriculture or mining. What we are seeing now with the pandemic is people working remotely, keeping their jobs in the city but living in the country. Regional Australia is the best place to be, and this government is making sure that it will have a secure future.
Mr Joyce: Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:11): I present the Commonwealth Ombudsman's quarterly reports under section 712F(6) of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the period 1 October to 31 December 2020, and 1 January to 31 March 2021.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report No. 45 of 2020-21
The SPEAKER (15:12): I present the Auditor-General's Performance Audit Report No. 45 of 2020-21 entitled Management of Commonwealth fisheries: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (15:12): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Ms COKER: Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Ms COKER: The resources minister, earlier in question time, referred to a letter I had written to him, which is correct. But it was about my community and representing them in their concerns about drilling for oil and gas right next to the Twelve Apostles on the Great Ocean Road. It was quite different to the way he referred to it. I seek leave to table the letter.
Leave not granted.
The SPEAKER: For those making personal explanations, I will just say that the way that personal explanation was made was succinct and direct, in that you went to the fact where you claimed to have been misrepresented, you stated it and you did not debate the matter. I dish out a bit of criticism, but where someone's done something by the book I will say that. But I will still eject you under 94(a) if you interject.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
COVID-19
The SPEAKER (15:13): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Rankin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government’s failure on quarantine and vaccinations risks squandering the economic recovery.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (15:14): The people of Sydney—and, before that, the people of Melbourne and indeed people right around our country—in the last year and a bit have had to make sacrifices to limit the spread of this diabolical virus. I know that the thoughts of the whole parliament—certainly this side of the parliament—are with the people of Sydney as they deal with an uncertain period made necessary by our collective efforts to do what we can to limit the spread of COVID-19.
I suspect that one of the reasons why those opposite, in question after question and motion after motion, are so desperate to talk about the Labor Party—so desperate to point the finger or so desperate to change the subject—is that in their heart of hearts those opposite actually understand that the Prime Minister's bungling of vaccinations and quarantine are one reason why we're having lockdown after lockdown after lockdown. Even those opposite, who are not the sharpest tools in the shed, understand that for as long as those opposite to continue to make an absolute mess of those two important tasks then we will continue to be asking the people of this country to make the kinds of sacrifices that the people of Sydney are making as we speak.
The Premier of New South Wales said today—and she's right—that we'll continue to have these lockdowns until we deploy the vaccinations broadly, and that those vaccinations and the vaccination process are the responsibility of the federal government. It is time that this Prime Minister, at long last, took proper responsibility for those two important things which are jeopardising the recovery and jeopardising our communities, making life hard for people in Sydney now and in Melbourne before that, and in different parts of the country for much of the last year and a bit.
Those opposite talk about the jobs numbers that came out last week, and we have said that those numbers were welcome and pleasing; we've said all throughout that we want to see people employed and people back to work. It's why we proposed the wage subsidy and why we've been constructive throughout. But what those opposite don't understand is that the secret to Australia's relative success has been the efforts of our people, despite the efforts of their government. This country would be performing much, much better if those opposite got their act together when it comes to vaccinations and quarantine. Just because the recession could have been worse doesn't mean that the recovery couldn't be better. The foundation that the Australian people have built together—this remarkable foundation that they've built together when it comes to this recovery—is put at risk and held hostage by the bungling of vaccinations and quarantine, as we have said repeatedly. Even in the Treasurer's own budget is a forecast, an estimate—there's an expectation—that there will be a lockdown every month in a major capital city for the rest of the year. Those opposite have actually budgeted for failure. Their own budget says that they will continue to get this wrong and that the people of this country will continue to be locked down as a consequence of their incompetence.
There are two ways that we can squander the foundation that the Australian people have built throughout this recession and into the recovery. The first one is to continue to get those two important tasks wrong. The second is to continue to play the kind of short-term politics that we saw in the budget that was handed down not that long ago. In that budget, we saw a deficit of vision. We saw generational debt without a generational dividend. We didn't see the kind of long-term thinking which is necessary to ensure that we can do justice to that foundation which Australians have built together in the immediate aftermath of the recession, to what Australians have done for each other—to actually build on that with a long-term plan to make sure the economy grows, and not just grows but grows in an inclusive and sustainable way into the future. That's so working people in this country can actually get a slice of the action—so we have a recovery where people actually feel the benefit of that recovery.
And it's so we can deal with some of the challenges that we have as a country, whether those be China, cybersecurity, supply-chain risk or the scramble for talent. All of these issues are more or less ignored because of the short-term political thinking of those opposite. The Intergenerational report, which will be released on Monday by the Treasurer, is an opportunity for those opposite to finally inject some long-term thinking into this recovery—the long-term thinking that was so absent from the budget that was handed down not that long ago.
For the second time in a decade, this country risks overachieving in a crisis and underachieving in the aftermath. We know that from what the Productivity Commission said in the last couple of weeks. They said that in terms of living standards, this has been the worst decade in the last 60 years. Of course, those opposite have been in charge for eight of those 10 years where living standards have stagnated.
It's not a recovery if working people don't get a slice of the action. It's not a recovery if those opposite—and the Treasurer is the worst offender here—continue to ignore the 1.7 million Australians who can't find a job or who can't find enough work. And it's not a recovery if the working people of this country go backwards. The government's own budget says that, after a horrific period of wage stagnation, those opposite actually expect real wages to go backwards over the next four years.
The McKell Institute in Sydney has done some important research, which says that the difference between the wages outcomes under the last Labor government and the wages outcomes under this government, under those opposite—the difference between the performance under us and the performance under them—means $254 a week. Australian working people have gone backwards under those opposite by $254 a week. That is the price that ordinary working people in this country are asked to pay for the deliberate attacks on wages and conditions that we see time and time again from those opposite. Two hundred and fifty-four dollars a week is the price of that deliberate design feature of the government's economic policy which sees them come back time and time again attacking wages, attacking jobs security and attacking conditions in this country. So we won't be taking a lecture from those opposite about aspiration, when they have spent every day of the last eight long years trying to work out how they can screw down people's wages. Unfortunately, they have been successful to the tune of something like $254 a week on average.
And we won't be taking a lecture from those opposite about debt and deficit. Those opposite ran around the country saying that the debt and deficit—a tiny fraction of what it is now—was a disaster. One of the worst offenders they have just re-elevated to the Deputy Prime Ministership of this country. We won't forget that when Commonwealth government debt was $116 billion, the Deputy Prime Minister said that that risked 'economic Armageddon' and a 'real financial crisis'. Now that debt is over $1 trillion and rising, he has gone a little bit quiet about 'economic Armageddon'. If it was 'economic Armageddon' at $116 billion, I shudder to think how he would describe this debt, which is well over $1 trillion, accumulated by those opposite. So we won't be taking a lecture on debt and deficit. And we won't be taking a lecture on economic management from the party which has delivered, as I said before, according to the Productivity Commission, the worst living standards over the last 10 years compared to the 50 years before it.
Once again in question time we heard the same old rubbish about tax from those opposite. What they don't like to admit, what they don't like to concede—but you can see it in their own budget papers—is that the two highest-taxing governments have been Howard and Morrison—Howard, of all time, and Morrison. In the last 30 years, the highest-taxing governments have been Liberal governments. So spare us this complete rubbish about levels of tax. Those opposite, twice now in our political lifetime, have been the two highest-taxing governments in the history of the Commonwealth. So spare us all of that.
Those opposite have a record of economic mismanagement which is defined, in my view, by those outcomes on wages and job security. The most important part of the economy is the people-facing part of the economy—the part that determines whether people can actually provide for their loved ones and whether, if they work hard, they can get ahead. The big risk for the Australian people is not just that we've had these eight years of wage stagnation and not just that we have had eight years of job insecurity—getting worse and worse as this government has badly aged. The bigger risk for the Australian people is if those opposite are re-elected at the next opportunity—whether it is October or November or February or March; whenever it is, we will be ready—because we will have more of the wage stagnation if those opposite turn eight or nine years into 12.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (15:24): I'm delighted to speak on this motion moved by the member for Rankin for a simple reason, and that is that it is a chance to acknowledge the work of all Australians in saving lives and livelihoods across this country during the course of the greatest global pandemic in 100 years, the greatest global pandemic since the Spanish flu. To put all of this in context, as I mentioned in question time, there were over 400,000 cases worldwide yesterday, over 9,600 lives lost—souls lost—in one 24-hour period, over 2,080,000 lives lost just in the course of this year and 96 million cases reported. In Australia we are blessed with the fact that no person has caught COVID in this country this year and passed from it. Every day, of course, is a risk. Every day is a challenge. But that fact alone is perhaps the most human and, at the same time, the most graphic demonstration of that which this nation has achieved over the course of the last 18 months. In the midst of a global pandemic, from which we are not immune, as the opposition would somehow have us believe, where in one day over 9,600 souls perished and in one half year over two million souls have been lost officially, with the World Health Organization indicating it is perhaps two to three types greater than that or the equivalent of five million lives, no-one has caught COVID in Australia so far in 2021 and lost their lives to it.
Every day we focus on trying to minimise the cases. But every day we realise that this is a global pandemic that has stopped the world. At the same time as having achieved these immense unimaginable health and human outcomes, we've also achieved the extraordinary economic outcome of having seen growth of 8.7 per cent over the last three quarters. We've seen unemployment drop in what has been a V-shaped recovery, as the Prime Minister predicted, to 5.1 per cent, with more people in employment now than prior to the pandemic. It is an almost inconceivable national achievement, arguably one of our nation's greatest, if not our greatest, peacetime achievement. We have done it with a very clear and concerted plan, a plan which has been built around rings of containment that began with our borders. This motion was ostensibly in part about our borders, and yet that was almost completely unaddressed by the member for Rankin.
What is it that we have seen? We have seen a quarantine and containment system almost unparalleled anywhere in the world. There is this easy belief, this casual passing belief, that somehow Australia could be immune from recording 400,000 cases a day and almost 10,000 lives lost a day. We're not immune, but we've been better protected by our actions than almost any other country in the world: in the state run quarantine systems, over 99 per cent protection; in the Commonwealth run quarantine system, 100 per cent protection. I understand that those opposite are saying they may not trust some of their colleagues in WA, Queensland or Victoria and they want to move that program to the Commonwealth. We do trust them. We actually do stand by them. These are the systems that they have operated and, where there have been transmissions, we fight every day to continue to improve.
So far the Howard Springs system, because of the clinical governance that has been in place, has seen no cases transmitted. I recognise that in Victoria, in Queensland and in Western Australia, despite their best efforts, there have been cases transmitted. But we have faith and confidence in those governments. I am surprised that the member for Macnamara apparently does not have faith in the Victorian government to operate their system. We do. But, having said that, the very notion of this motion implies that any nation could be immune. We have seen that that first line of defence has protected Australia in a way that almost no other country of comparable size can claim to be protected in terms of lives and therefore livelihoods. If we look at the United States today, they have a seven-day rolling average of 300 lives lost each day. In the UK, their seven-day rolling average of cases is 10,000 a day. So vaccination plays a role but it is only one part of the rings of containment. All of these matters have been airbrushed—Australia's achievements and the challenges that other nations are facing. Vaccination is a critical part but it's not the first line of defence; it becomes a fundamental line of defence. If we look at 300 lives lost every day in the United States and 10,000 cases every day, on average, over the last seven days in the UK, we recognise the truth of that.
Had we not put in place in Australia the rings of containment, beginning with a border decision which was contested and challenged by many, which was rejected by the World Health Organization, we would have faced a catastrophically different outcome. Potentially 30,000 lives have been saved by comparison with the developed world, and 45,000 lives have been saved by comparison with the per capita loss of life in the UK and the US—nations which seem to be a point of comparison for those opposite. We will take our outcomes in Australia. Even though each life lost is an agony and a tragedy, the lives saved are to be rejoiced upon and celebrated.
Then we look in particular to the fact that our testing and our tracing have saved lives. In terms of what we have done there, at the height of a pandemic, whether it was PPE or tests we were able to secure those and to protect Australia. In terms of our vaccination program, we have now passed 27 per cent of Australians who have been vaccinated. On these figures that the opposition have put about: 27 per cent is the reality, with 6.8 million vaccinations in Australia, 140,000 in the last 24 hours, over a million vaccinations in the last 10 days and 990,000 in the last nine days. This is the reality of what's actually occurring in Australia.
In the aged-care facility in Victoria where three residents contracted the virus, we know all three had been vaccinated. All three are in hospital. Two, I'm told, are preparing to come home. Had they not been vaccinated it could have been a very different outcome, as we saw during the Victorian second wave. So these vaccinations are critical. One hundred per cent of aged-care facilities have had first doses. Approximately 99 per cent have had second doses.
Mr Rob Mitchell: Rubbish!
Mr HUNT: All of these things come together—and I hear the member for McEwen say 'rubbish'. Those are the facts in terms of the number of facilities which have been vaccinated. So, when we bring all of these things together, we know that Australia is in a situation that the vast bulk of countries in the world can only wish they were in—that is, of having achieved the twin goals of saving lives and protecting livelihoods. We've done that through all the elements that have allowed us as a nation to achieve things which the rest of the world looks upon with a degree of amazement and, in so many cases, with a desire to be in a similar place.
I go back to where I began. Only yesterday, around the world 406,000 people officially contracted COVID-19 and, agonisingly, over 9,600 lives were lost. Over the course of this year, over 2,080,000 lives have been lost. Yet, as a nation, we are in a position where no person has lost their life to COVID caught in Australia this year. That is one of the most extraordinary national achievements in our peacetime history. At the same time we are also seeing the recovery of jobs, with 8.7 per cent growth in GDP over the last three quarters, unemployment down to 5.1 per cent and more people in employment now than were in employment prior to the pandemic. So this nation, together, has achieved outcomes that have saved lives and saved livelihoods. We thank all Australians for playing their part.
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) ( 15:34 ): Well, of course, the government had two jobs this year that they should have been firmly focused on—that is, to fix up quarantine and, indeed, roll out the vaccine. Of course, when the government started failing at rolling out the vaccine, instead of committing to the Australian people by saying, 'We need to do better and we need to change things', what did they do? The Prime Minister of this country told the Australian people, 'It's not a race', that it's not a race and that we just need to go slowly on it. We heard the Prime Minister say that it's not a race, and then we heard the minister now at the table just say that the vaccine isn't the first line of defence. If we want to talk about the recovery and if we want to get back to some sort of normality then the rolling out of the vaccine and safe quarantine are a race.
That's what the Australian people expect and that's what the Australian people deserve. The Australian people worked hard in 2020; they followed the public health orders and they did everything that was expected of them. They cancelled funerals, they cancelled weddings and they missed out on so many things. It's not much to ask their government to actually meet them and ensure that they're protected and supported. This government have failed to do the two basic jobs that they should have been firmly focused on. Without getting these two important jobs right, we will not be able to get back to our new normality. We will not be able to ensure that we can move freely across this country, that people are able to celebrate together, be together and be reunited. Those things are critically important.
I think that this week, of all weeks, when the Australian people are seeing the lockdown that happened in Melbourne and now the restrictions coming in Sydney they'll really be scratching their heads about why in this place, in Canberra, we're not talking firmly about the vaccine rollout and quarantine but instead about having a new Deputy Prime Minister. In fact, those on the other side have been so focused internally—so focused on their own jobs—that indeed they have rolled the Deputy Prime Minister to install a new one. I think the Australian people would be very disappointed at these types of actions.
If we're going to get back to normal we need to ensure that we have vaccines and quarantine correct. If we don't do that we'll fall behind in the recovery race. We will fall behind the rest of the world and will fall behind for so many people. We need to get Australians back to working the hours they want and need, and early education and learning are of course critical parts of that. So while we should have been talking about how to fix the botched vaccine rollout and how to fix quarantine, instead what we've had from the government is a debate about whether child care is actually important or not.
We've heard that those on the other side had a big debate in their party room on whether or not they believe that working women who use child care are just outsourcing their parenting. Another coalition MP is reported to have said that they might be forced back to work. While we on this side of the House are talking about how we can support the Australian people, how we can fix the botched vaccine rollout and how we can fix national quarantine, those on the other side are having a flashback to the 1950s. They're talking about whether or not child care is actually needed in this country. If we're going to recover from this pandemic and if we're going to get Australians back to work with the hours they need and want then we cannot have those on the other side destroying our early education system, questioning its importance or indeed questioning whether or not women who use child care are actually just outsourcing their parenting. That is an insult to so many women working across this country and it has no role when we talk about the recovery from this pandemic; it has no role in ensuring that this country gets back on its feet.
The government needs to do better when it comes to the vaccine rollout and quarantine, and it should stop these internal— (Time expired)
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters and Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service) (15:39): It's a bit rich hearing about economic recovery from those economic vandals on the other side of this chamber who have denied the fact that the Australian economy has seen unemployment fall, in the seventh consequent month, to 5.1 per cent. Today we have the highest female workforce participation ever and Australia's AAA credit rating has been reaffirmed. We are one of only nine countries in the world to have a AAA credit rating.
We've been working closely with businesses and with Australians to get our economy back on track. But what have those opposite been doing? They have been frustrating important economic reforms in this parliament. There is one that we are in the middle of debating now: reforms to ensure that we can improve environmental outcomes but reduce red tape and duplication, which is costing projects. Today a contingent of Western Australia industry associations—the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, and the Pastoralists and Graziers Association—has written to the Leader of the Opposition, calling on the opposition to get on and support urgently the bills that are in this House to ensure that the $140 billion worth of projects that are in Western Australia now can get on and we can secure the jobs that Australians need.
It costs over a million dollars a day for every day a project is delayed. But it is not just resource companies and business representative companies in Western Australia calling for this. In fact, it was Premier Mark McGowan in 2019 who said that reforms to the EPBC Act to allow for bilateral approval agreements would slash approval times for major projects and unleash jobs. He said:
This plan ensures we maintain the highest environmental standards, but don't get bogged down in bureaucracy.
He's called more recently for the Labor Party to support these reforms, but the Labor Party are not even listening to their state counterpart, Premier Mark McGowan. I would've thought that if there was somebody Anthony Albanese would listen to it would be Mark McGowan, but it's not. They're going there next week. They're going to try to don their high-vis and their hats. They're going to pretend that they support Western Australian industry while they're demonstrating the opposite. Mark McGowan has said this week:
We support this legislation and WA continues to work with the Commonwealth to progress a bilateral agreement for approvals which will maintain environmental standards and reduce red tape …
Now, if you can't support Premier McGowan on the week before your shadow cabinet goes on a holiday to Western Australia, I tell you what, there's something seriously wrong with the Labor Party in Australia.
I'm not the only person who thinks that there is a sickness in the Labor Party in this country. In fact, the member for Hunter published an opinion piece titled 'Approvals reform can protect natural assets & boost economy' in the West Australian only yesterday. What is he encouraging his colleagues to do? He is encouraging them to do the right thing, which is to get on and reduce regulation, red tape and duplication to make sure that we can protect the environment. He said:
It's time to get on with reforms to better protect natural assets and deliver a needed boost for our economy.
You see, those opposite like to say something on the east coast and do something completely different here in parliament. They're heading over to my state of Western Australia. They're going to pretend that they support and understand the resources industry in this country. They're going to pretend that they are supporting our economic recovery, when their actions in this place are the opposite.
This afternoon we'll be considering amendments from the Senate for a reform to the recognition of occupational licences. This is something that's gone through the Senate and will come through this House. It is something that has passed the parliament in New South Wales, and we will consider it in this chamber. And why will we consider it today? It is because the Victorian government is putting this legislation in their parliament tomorrow, and the people sitting opposite, the Labor Party, voted against it in this chamber and voted with the Greens in the other chamber. They can't even support legislation supported by the Victorian Labor government. Shame!
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (15:44): I find it so interesting when the Prime Minister says in question time that Labor is trying to politicise a pandemic. We are not. What we are doing is protecting the Australian people from this inept government—a government that is so laissez-faire about everything it can't be bothered to order enough vaccines, it can't be bothered to build quarantine facilities and it can't be bothered to efficiently and properly support Australian business and Australian workers who, let me guarantee you, are still hurting as a result of what they've been going through for now well over 14 months. It is really an abomination that this government would stand here and pride itself on what a brilliant job it is doing. Let me tell you: the brilliant job has been done by the people of Australia and by the premiers of Australia. The Prime Minister has been lacking through this pandemic and is still lacking as we speak.
My electorate of Paterson has an incredibly strong tourism sector. People come from all over New South Wales—although, they are not coming from Sydney right now, because, as the Premier of New South Wales has said, this has not been handled well by the Commonwealth, and she meant vaccines and quarantine—in particular to see the magnificent whales on the whale highway as they make their way up north for the migratory season to have their young. People come from all over the world normally as well—but, of course, at the moment they can't. Due to COVID restrictions, my tourism operators, my whale-watch operators, have had to take boats—with a capacity normally of about 130 people—out with as few people as 13. They've survived due to JobKeeper. But, with that finishing up, I struggle to see how they can continue without more job losses—without staff losing their jobs.
It's really easy to become complacent when the country has a low number of cases. It's easy for the Prime Minister to boast, 'It's not a race.' Of course it's a race. It's a race to get people vaccinated, to save lives, to save livelihoods, to save our country from becoming a pariah and an outlier in a very global world. Just today the Premier of New South Wales came out and stated:
We don't have any control over the number of doses we receive and what those doses are. That is the responsibility of the Commonwealth.
They are just the facts. Everyone else gets it, the Liberal premiers get it, but the Prime Minister and his band of, frankly, incompetent ministers continue to fail to take any responsibility.
In my electorate, a GP clinic was getting prepared for the vaccination rollout. They rented the premises next door, knocked out a wall and bought new vaccine fridges in the belief that they'd need the space to house incoming vaccines. But those fridges never filled up. The vaccines did not come as they were needed and the jabs haven't gone into the arms, because of the Morrison government. In the month since February, New South Wales has seen under two million doses administered. That may seem like a lot, but the reality is that only 243,000 people have been fully vaccinated in Australia. Let me repeat that: as of today, only 243,000 people have been fully vaccinated in Australia. It is not good enough. That is under three per cent of the state's population—just three per cent. Comparatively, the US and the UK have managed to vaccinate just under half of their population. So, in the global race, to get people vaccinated, we have well and truly fallen behind. If this government continues with this failure of a rollout, our businesses won't be able to compete, our tourism sector will choke and our economy will suffer until 2023. Australians just simply can't afford this, on top of the debt that has been loaded onto them by this government.
To compound the issue, in the past couple of weeks, people in my electorate and across Australia have been bombarded by misinformation from the likes of Clive Palmer. Well, let me say this: if the Prime Minister were half the ad man he makes out to be, he'd do better than Clive Palmer.
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (15:49): I'm happy to rise to speak on this matter of public importance, and I thank the member for Rankin for putting it forward. I also thank the member for Rankin for acknowledging the work that the government has done and how far we have come during the pandemic. There's certainly an inference in the way the matter of public importance is written that we're at risk of losing that gain that we've made over the past 12 months. So it's good to hear that Labor is actually acknowledging that.
Of course there's no handbook for this pandemic. We haven't seen something like this for over a hundred years. I do acknowledge the words of the last speaker, who acknowledged all people around Australia for the hard work that they have done. When we shut down the borders on 24 February last year—earlier than any other country—we shut them down hard, and we did it for the health benefit and the economic benefit of our nation. We took those early steps knowing—having taken advice from the chief medical officers—that if we didn't take those actions, if we didn't take those steps, then, in comparison with the developed nations, we were looking at somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000 deaths and, in the developing countries, somewhere in the vicinity of 45,000 deaths. But we didn't see that because of what our people did. People in our electorates, across the board, listened to the government, listened to the health officers and made huge sacrifices—none more so than the people in Victoria. In my electorate, we were lucky. I think we had two or three cases and, sadly, one death of a 94-year-old. The country made massive sacrifices to ensure that we are where we are now.
I try and remain as balanced as I possibly can. I'm happy to call my government out when they're not doing the right thing or when they haven't done the right thing, and I think I've proven that in the two short years that I've been here. But we can't ignore the economic facts. Unemployment is at 5.1 per cent. More people are in work than were in work prior to the pandemic. You can't ignore those facts. You can't ignore the fact that, only yesterday, 400,000 people around the world contracted COVID. You can't ignore the fact that 9,600 people around the world, sadly, passed away. You can't ignore the fact that, in the last six months, two million people around the world have passed away because of COVID—none of whom have died in Australia. Those facts are there in black and white. So to say that the government has not succeeded economically is simply not true. Certainly there were disruptions in supply affecting the vaccine rollout, and that's because countries jealously withheld those vaccines because they were seeing 3,000, 4,000 or 5,000 deaths a day. The fact remains that the vaccine rollout is accelerating every single day. Indeed, there have been 700,000 vaccinations over the last seven days. More than 65 per cent of people over 70 are now protected and 45 per cent of people over 50. So we are making good inroads. Our economy is strong. Standard & Poor's agree with us. We've kept our AAA credit rating. There were 987,000 jobs created in the past quarter. I think we're doing well.
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (15:54): This is a very important MPI because it actually talks about what's been happening. I appreciate the previous member wanting to quote selected facts, but let's look at some other important facts. There were 700,000 vaccines in a week, but 1.4 million have been delivered—where have they gone? Why is it that only 15 per cent of aged-care workers have been fully vaccinated? Why are these things happening? These things are happening because this government took a suck-it-and-see approach. At the start of this pandemic it was Labor that was saying: 'You need to get on the front foot and get vaccines. You need to shut the borders. You need to do these things to protect Australian workers, Australian businesses and Australian lives,' but the government refused.
When we first started talking about a wage subsidy program it was Labor that was at the forefront of that, saying, 'People need security as they're losing jobs and businesses are being shut down.' But the government said it was a stupid idea. Eventually they were forced, dragged kicking and screaming, to bring in JobKeeper. Labor supported JobKeeper because it was our idea. We're the ones at the forefront that said, 'This needs to happen.' It saved a lot of people's livelihoods and a lot of businesses. But the government callously withdrew that, and people are now unemployed and are not able to go to work whenever there's a lockdown—forced to go with nothing.
The Prime Minister hoped that this pandemic would just come and go. He's been dragged kicking and screaming every single step of the way. That's why, as we get to the two-year mark of the pandemic, we still don't have national quarantine. We still only have three per cent of the population fully vaccinated. There is nothing that they can say on the other side that could actually stand up to justify that, apart from the fact that they have failed each and every Australian in this country.
I know, through a local aged-care facility, 20 people died and there were 170 cases of COVID. The minister came into this place and said, 'They've all been fully vaccinated.' That was absolutely, 100 per cent, incorrect. In fact, only 60 per cent of the staff have been vaccinated as of today. The minister, if he had any decency, would resign, because this is an absolute failure for these families. He didn't have the courage to walk in there and look at the room where people's whole entire lives have been stacked in boxes, because they have passed away and the home couldn't give the people's belongings back to the families. That's something that stands very sharply burnt in my mind, how much this government should be held directly responsible for the failure.
As I said, it's been a failure on every single thing the government has done. Not what we've done; we've been at the forefront. We said: 'National quarantine facilities.' We said, 'Get a range of vaccines in.' But the government—no. It went out and said that it'd done a deal with AstraZeneca when it hadn't. The only thing this government has succeeded on is failing at every single target and every single major outcome it set. It has been the Australian people that've had to stand up and fight for it. It has been the Australian people in small businesses that've had to struggle through lockdowns and the pandemic, because the government is not on their side. The government's quite happy to support Gerry Harvey but not happy to support the cafes and small shops in our strips right across our regional towns and in our outer suburban areas. It's left them behind. It's left them with insecure work and an insecure future while the Prime Minister sits back and goes on a publicly funded journey to trace his ancestors. It's not fair and it's not right.
Another big problem we see in vaccines is that when we look, for example, through the Mitchell shire you can't get access to doctors. People who work shift work, people who work in the military, can't get access to doctors to get vaccines or to go and see doctors when they've got people that are sick in their families. These are all things that've happened that have contributed to what we've seen, where the government has failed. The Prime Minister shouldn't be gaslighting the rest of the world; he should stand up and take responsibility. The two jobs he had were: roll out a vaccine and deliver safe quarantine for people, and he's failed on both of them. Those across the way might say: 'We shut the borders to China,' but the US is actually where this came from. Let's not forget two words that describe this government when it comes to COVID: Ruby Princess.
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (15:59): Many Australians and citizens across the world will account this pandemic as one of the world's events that shaped society forever. We have faced a change across all fronts of existence. For many countries these changes, while brought on by COVID, have been compounded by the economic shock that followed, but, thankfully, in Australia things have been different. We have weathered the economic storm that has been wreaking havoc for many of our neighbours. Thanks to the firm, yet stable, economic management of the Morrison government, Australian people have been able to return to a sense of normality quite quickly.
The decisive and effective actions made by the Morrison government throughout this period haven't been driven by luck; rather they've been driven by an economically competent government that cares deeply for its citizens. In the 2021-22 budget, the Morrison government rolled out a further $1.7 billion to extend our COVID-19 health response package and a further $1.9 billion for vaccine purchases and rollout. These measures bring the total health-related COVID expenditure to over $25 billion. This figure is enormous, but it's worth every penny. This has been money well spent and has put our economy back on track while protecting the health of all Australians.
As a country, we are in a fortunate position compared to the rest of the world. We have a very low rate of COVID and we have kept the spread to a minimum, thanks to effective quarantine capabilities. We have become a world leader in vaccine management. This gives us considerable flexibility in how we proceed as a country. With that, the Morrison government prioritises putting COVID behind us as quickly as possible. This means providing vaccines for everyone across Australia to prevent further outbreaks. As a government that listens to the sound advice of experts, decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccines have been guided by the expert medical advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. This is a strategy that prioritises the safety of the Australian population.
As we continue to roll out the COVID vaccination, we have also continued to bring Australians from overseas back home. Since hotel quarantine measures were implemented on 28 March 2020, there have been over 378,000 international air arrivals on red zone flights. Among these international air arrivals there have been an estimated 4,006 COVID-19 cases, the majority of which were detected in hotel quarantine. The Australian government has strict border and quarantine measures in place to protect the health of the Australian community from COVID-19. This has provided our first line of defence against the tidal wave that is COVID. Thanks to the Morrison government's measures with border control, we have become enviable at our COVID management.
I don't think any one of my colleagues from any side of the chamber will disagree that this has been a tough time for all Australians, especially early on during the pandemic, but we have demonstrated resilience throughout this period, and now our economy is back on track. Our people are healthy, and we are in an enviable position in a COVID riddled world. The Morrison government has done so much to ensure we are in this position, but we also need to give a hand to the Australian people, who have done such a fantastic job in banding together so that we have been able to survive together.
Mr DICK (Oxley) (16:04): I rise to offer my remarks about today's matter of public importance. I want to thank the member for Rankin for putting on the parliament's agenda the failure of the government to properly deal with the two issues that they had to focus on this year: delivering vaccinations and ensuring an adequate and efficient quarantine system for this country. What that failure has meant is an impact on our economic recovery.
We haven't heard too much about what not delivering vaccines or quarantine means, and I'll focus on a real-life example of that impact in my own community, in an important industry that I am supporting. But I first want to pick up on what the Minister for Health and Aged Care was talking about today. He somehow wanted to be congratulated. Members of this parliament on the other side want to be congratulated for their appalling record—the appalling record of what they've promised and what they've delivered.
There are four issues that I want to focus on. We were promised four million vaccinations by the end of March. We were promised six million vaccinations by 10 May. We were promised that all aged-care and disability care workers were to be vaccinated by Easter and that every Australian would be vaccinated by October. The aged-care minister today confirmed, in this parliament, that four per cent of home-care workers in aged care have been fully vaccinated and 15 per cent of all aged-care workers have been fully vaccinated. So I don't want any more word salad from the health minister or any other rubbish from those opposite. The facts are that we have botched the rollout of vaccinations in this country. Whether you like it or not, despite all the spin and bluster, we are back of the queue. I repeat: there were to be four million vaccinations by the end of March and six million vaccinations by 10 May, and all aged-care and disability care workers were to be vaccinated by Easter. This government have failed, failed, failed on their own commitments. Every worker in 1a was to be vaccinated. It has not happened. So do not get up here and ask to be congratulated for the way that you've handled vaccinations and their rollout in this country.
This government has failed to protect Australians, it's failed to roll out the vaccine effectively and efficiently and it's failed to introduce a regional quarantine system. Just this morning, the Queensland Premier called out the government on their stubborn refusal to cooperate with our Queensland government to establish a regional quarantine hub. Today we have had a 25th COVID outbreak from hotel quarantine. In Queensland we are seeing guests being infected in quarantine. We are seeing room-to-room transmission. We are seeing transmission across floors. People are coming to Australia without COVID-19—I'll say that again: they're arriving in Australia without COVID-19 and they are catching it in hotel rooms, because this government is choosing to be utterly blind to reality. Hotels are made for tourists, not quarantine. What we're dealing with is a far more contagious strain of this virus. A year ago, health experts advised the virus was transmitted with about 15 minutes of contact. Now, with the delta strain, it looks like we are seeing transmission in as little as five to 10 seconds.
Australians have worked hard to contain COVID, and we are all enjoying the benefits of their hard work. But this government has utterly let down Australians by stubbornly refusing to deal with the issue of national regional quarantine. Let me say to this parliament: Queenslanders support a regional quarantine hub. We know that. And Australians will not achieve growth without fewer lockdowns. The Wellcamp site will cost the Australian taxpayer zero dollars. It can be up and running in six months. This government refuses, in its pig-headed stubbornness, to actually listen to what Queenslanders want. We will continue to fight to make sure Queenslanders have safety, just as our Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, has done. We will continue to speak out and call this government out for failing to deliver regional quarantine. It is an absolute disgrace and they should hang their heads in shame.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (16:09): I'm absolutely delighted to be discussing the topics of quarantine, the COVID-19 vaccine rollout and the fact that Australia has done better than almost any other country with regard to aggressive suppression of the COVID pandemic right here in Australia. It's something we know we can be proud of because the federal, state and territory governments have been working together. Let's be very clear about this: from the very start we've had to deal with this issue at speed and each and every time the federal government, working hand in glove with states and territories, has made a magnificent set of decisions. The first one was to close the borders to international arrivals. Other countries didn't make this swift decision and so other countries haven't benefited from this. It is also very clear that the quarantine facilities that have been stood up in this country have delivered incredible outcomes. We have seen more than 350,000 people come through quarantine. I have been on the board of a local hospital and I know that when you work in a human services environment there are always issues of perfection. Some members sitting in the chamber are nodding in agreement with me, and that is because we as doctors, nurses and social workers understand that when you're working with people there is always the possibility of human error.
Added to that, we know COVID is changing as we speak. There are variants of concern, and we know that COVID is becoming sneakier. Another thing about our COVID response is that the federal government, hand in glove with states and territories, is responding as COVID is changing. We know that quarantining has been stood up at great speed. It was stood up within 48 hours, and what has resulted is that we've had 4,000 positive cases of COVID coming through that system. Despite this, there have been just a handful of breaches through that quarantining process, and we know it's because it is very difficult to capture every case. We know that there's a period when COVID is asymptomatic, when people are positive for COVID but they don't have symptoms. That is just a medical fact of life. It is actually quite incredible that there haven't been more cases of COVID. For instance, we know the COVID incubation period can be longer than 14 days, so one in 100 cases will become positive after people leave quarantine. What we've found is the quarantining facilities have stepped up with daily testing of both the workers and those who are in quarantine, so people can know if they're becoming positive sooner rather than later and therefore not spread COVID into the community. There have also been changes to things like ventilation. We know that people are increasing the ventilation in hotel quarantine.
I do believe that there needs to be increased capacity for quarantining, and we are seeing a step up for some of those facilities, which I support because we want to be able to bring more Australians home safely. Let's be aware that, as we increase quarantining capacity, there will be more capacity for outbreaks, so we will always have to have good contact tracing, the second line of defence. It's like fortress Australia, with the walls around Australia ensuring the arrows of COVID are being shot across the parapets. We need to have the crack teams picking up the wildfires and little outbreaks that are occurring in Australia. When those outbreaks are not contained, unfortunately we go to hotspot lockdowns and, if they're then not contained, we go to statewide lockdowns. There have been issues, and different states have dealt with them differently. But I would say that, for the greater good, the federal government has worked to develop the national cabinet with the AHPPC to make sure that Australia has had a consistent standardised way of working with this COVID pandemic, which has not been easy. This has resulted in an outcome where Australians can hold their heads high and show that there have not been nearly as many deaths per capita as there have been almost anywhere else in the world. That's something that Labor consistently talks down.
They consistently talk down our response as all Australians. But all Australians can feel incredibly proud of the work that we on this side have done, while from what's said by those on that side you would think that we were in a terrible place. In fact, I think we can be very confident that being able to deal with the health consequences of this pandemic has resulted in a rebound in our economic outcomes, and we are seeing some of the lowest unemployment rates for many years. We can see women returning to work in massive numbers and we know that the economic consequence is that Australia is bounding back. We are very, very lucky that this is because of the good health decisions made on this side of the parliament. I'm very proud to be sitting on this side of the chamber to make sure that we're delivering a great and strong economy for the rest of Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The discussion has now concluded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:14): Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Yes, most grievously—once again.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Members in this place from the opposition, both in question time and the MPI, and also in the press, have falsely accused me of saying within the government party room that working women were outsourcing parenting. That is false. What I said to the government party room in a statement that was supportive of both increased childcare funding and also more funding for so-called stay-at-home parents, was that I made reference to the term 'outsourcing care'. That's not a pejorative term but exactly what childcare centres provide for both parents—not just women: outsourced care for children.
BILLS
Transport Security Amendment (Serious Crime) Bill 2020
Treasury Laws Amendment (More Flexible Superannuation) Bill 2020
Treasury Laws Amendment (Your Future, Your Super) Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (Self Managed Superannuation Funds) Bill 2020
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
Fuel Security Bill 2021
Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2021-2022
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2021-2022
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 3) Bill 2021
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Age of Dependants) Bill 2021
Online Safety (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021
Financial Regulator Assessment Authority (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021
Biosecurity Amendment (Strengthening Penalties) Bill 2021
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendments or requests.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Opp (1) [Sheet 1298]
Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.
(2) Patrick (1) [Sheet 1333]
Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "5", substitute "6".
(3) Opp (2) [Sheet 1298]
Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 6 (line 7), omit the Schedule.
(4) Patrick (2) [Sheet 1333]
Page 14 (after line 7), at the end of the bill, add:
Schedule 6—Community television
Part 1—Amendments
Broadcasting Services Act 1992
1 At the end of subsection 81(1)
Add:
Note: See also section 96B of the Radiocommunications Act 1992, which provides that CTV licences must not be granted to new holders after 30 June 2021.
2 At the end of subsection 92C(1)
Add:
Note: See also section 96B of the Radiocommunications Act 1992, which provides that licences for television services under this Part must not be granted to new holders after 30 June 2021.
Radiocommunications Act 1992
3 After section 96
Insert:
96A Policy in relation to certain community broadcasting services and open narrowcasting television services
(1) It is the intention of the Parliament that:
(a) until 30 June 2024, access to the broadcasting services bands be available to provide the following services in a prescribed area:
(i) community broadcasting services provided under a CTV licence;
(ii) community broadcasting services that provide television programs under a licence under Part 6A of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992;
(iii) open narrowcasting television services provided for community or educational non‑profit purposes that are transmitted from one or more radiocommunications transmitters, the operation of which is authorised under an apparatus licence issued under section 100; but
(b) on and after 30 June 2024, all such services should be delivered using online platforms.
(2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, prescribe an area for the purposes of paragraph (h) of the definition of prescribed area in subsection (3).
(3) In this section:
broadcasting services bands has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
CTV licence has the same meaning as in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
prescribed area means:
(a) Adelaide; or
(b) Melbourne; or
(c) an area prescribed in an instrument under subsection (2).
96B Licences of certain kinds must not be granted to new holders after 30 June 2021
(1) This section applies to a person if, on 30 June 2021, the person did not hold one or more of the following licences:
(a) a CTV licence;
(b) a licence under Part 6A of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to provide a community broadcasting service that provides television programs;
(c) an apparatus licence issued under section 100 that:
(i) authorises the operation of one or more radiocommunications transmitters; and
(ii) includes a condition that the licence may only be used to provide a transmission in standard definition digital mode of an open narrowcasting television service for community and educational non‑profit purposes.
(2) Despite anything else in this Act or the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the person is not eligible to hold a licence of that kind after that day.
4 Subsection 103(2)
After "Subject to", insert "subsection (2A) and".
5 After subsection 103(2)
Insert:
(2A) An apparatus licence issued under section 100 with the licence number 1171866 does not have effect after 30 June 2024.
6 Paragraph 103(4A ) ( c)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(c) if the related licence is a CTV licence within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992—does not have effect after 30 June 2024.
7 Application of amendments
The amendments made by items 4 to 6 of this Schedule apply in relation to apparatus licences regardless of when the licences were issued.
Part 2—Repeals
Australian Communications and Media Authority (Community Television) Direction 2020
8 The whole of the instrument
Repeal the instrument.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (16:16): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The effect of the first amendment would be to remove schedule 1 to the bill, which would have made a change to the obligations applying to eligible subscription-television broadcasting licensees in relation to their drama expenditure. By reason of the amendment, that schedule will not proceed; it does not form part of the bill now before the House—well, to be precise, the amendment the House is asked to make is to remove schedule 1.
The other amendment deals with community television. It would allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority to extend the licensing arrangements of Australia's two remaining metropolitan community television broadcasters, channel 31 in Melbourne and channel 44 in Adelaide, for up to three years. The amendments also ensure that channel 31 and channel 44 will vacate the terrestrial broadcasting spectrum by 30 June 2024, in time for any changes to spectrum allocation arising from the government's media reform green paper process. I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:18): I rise to support the motion. You could be forgiven, if you heard the minister's speech, for not understanding exactly what has just happened.
We had a debate in this chamber and we heard it was about a change in the drama content obligations. What the minister tried to do was to cut Foxtel's obligations for Australian-scripted drama in half. He tried to cut it in half! The Senate, including members of his own party, said that would be an appalling thing to do. We had the debate in this House, and he sat here scoffing while I was making the points about the importance of Australian drama.
This is not the only attack on Australian drama that has come from this minister. We have also seen the demand for scripted drama as part of free-to-air television to be cut. And when has he chosen to do these cuts? In the middle of a pandemic, when this exact sector was the first to be hit and was hit so hard. The concept of 'minister for the arts' is meant to imply that in some way you're for the arts. It's not meant to be that you're somebody who sees an industry going through its toughest time and says, 'Now's the time to attack them.'
I want to commend those members who stood up to this minister. I want to commend those crossbenchers who stood up to this minister. I want to thank my own party for being willing every time to defend Australian stories. I simply say to the minister: you might not be willing to acknowledge what's happened in the chamber, you don't need to, just stop the attack. There's been a really good effort from the government in making sure that we get extra jobs from Hollywood stories being told here, and we support those jobs. We support those efforts. Why do you hate the Australian stories? Why on earth is it really good for Marvel to make stories here in Australia and it's not really good for Australian companies to tell Australian stories here?
You would have thought if those businesses and those workers had one defender on that side of the House, it'd be their own minister, but, instead, who do you think's led the attack? It's actually been their own minister. What the sector needs is for the attack to end, and there's one action the minister needs to take. Streaming companies hadn't seriously arrived when we were last in government, but even then we were flagging, in the lead-up to the 2013 election, that for the next term action needed to be taken to make sure there are obligations on the streaming services to provide Australian content. We have now had eight long years—we're about to have a government enter its ninth year—and before we know it they're going to be asking the Australian people for 12 years. Take action on the streaming services. Demand Australian content. The relationship that matters isn't whether someone's viewing something through bandwidth or through cable; what matters is when you're watching your screen at home, are Australians going to be seeing the stories of our own nation? Are Australian children going to be growing up watching Australian stories, whether the remote goes to free-to-air, to cable or to the apps that come in through the web. Whichever way you're getting those stories, you want to make sure that Australian stories are part of it.
A whole lot of people in this parliament, a clear majority of this parliament, and, I acknowledge, a good number on the other side of politics, showed a real commitment to delivering on Australian stories. This minister has not. He has been dragged there every time. I simply say: (1) stop the attack, and (2) finally act on putting obligations on the streaming companies to produce scripted Australian drama and to make sure that children's content is a component of that. We all grew up watching Australian content on our screens. Don't rob the next generation of that.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (16:22): I'll only speak briefly, and I would like to go to the amendments with respect to community television. A very exciting development happened in the other place late last evening when Senator Rex Patrick moved some amendments that allowed for community television to have a three-year life while broadcasting to allow them to plan for their future. This is really, really exciting.
I would particularly like to acknowledge and thank the minister for always having his door open to me. I have pounded on his door many, many times. I'm sure he's quite relieved that he won't have me talking to him about community television again.
I think this is a great development, because community television tells our stories. The previous member was talking about Australian stories, and that is so true: Australian stories need to be told. But I also say that, with community television, it's not just Australian stories; they're your local, local community stories.
In South Australia, we have a wonderful community television network in Channel 44. We have fishing shows that are in my own community, that are in the electorate of Mayo. In the morning we have exercise programs particularly dedicated for old people, and it's our churches that are delivering mass and other church services on Sunday morning for people who can't physically get to church anymore. So I again send my enormous gratitude to the minister for listening, and I'm really pleased with these amendments. I commend this bill to the House.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (16:25): The bill we have before us—the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021—demonstrates the utter incompetence of this minister at the table. It is a complete humiliation. He has no authority and no credibility. From go to whoa, this has been a complete and utter stuff-up. He stuffed it up even when he introduced this bill. He made an incorrect second reading speech and had to come in here and correct it. I haven't been here for that long, but I've been here for just over 10 years and I have never seen this happen. For those of you who might be watching at home, just so you're aware, the second reading speech given by the minister is very important. It goes to the interpretation of law. It goes to an important point of statutory interpretation. For the minister to not even know what was in his own bill when he introduced it says everything about his incompetence not only in his portfolio but in his ability to conduct himself in this chamber. He stood here and stated things the bill did, when, in fact, it didn't do them. He didn't even know what his own legislation was about, so he had to come in here and correct it.
Let's be very clear. As the member for Watson stated: with this bill, the minister wanted to halve Foxtel's Australian content obligation. He wanted to halve it, and he gave all the reasons why that was going to be a fantastic idea. Today he comes in like nothing ever happened, when, in reality, the Senate has completely rejected the bill. And it's not only members of the crossbench that have rejected it; members of his own government have rejected it. All of this comes on top of this government's decision last year to suspend the Australian content quotas for the commercial TV broadcasters, as well as their decision to then water down those obligations for good. They have created huge angst and uncertainty for the Australian screen sector. They've cost jobs during a pandemic, during a recession and during economic recovery. Let's not forget that the minister even managed to stuff up the suspension of the content quotas. He falsely claimed to have suspended the commercial TV content quotas himself when he had not, because that's the job of the independent regulator, the ACMA. The government has also failed to introduce Australian content obligations for streaming services, just as the member for Watson said. Wait for this! I kid you not: it has been over four years since this government announced a review of Australian and children's content to 'ensure the ongoing availability of Australian and children's content to domestic and international audiences, regardless of platform'. It needs another birthday cake. Can you believe it? Four years! And there is still no sign of an Australian content obligation for streaming services.
The minister has even failed his own test. In December 2019 he announced that he would harmonise the regulatory framework 'towards a platform-neutral regulatory framework covering both online and offline delivery of media content to Australian consumers'. Where are we today? Other jurisdictions, including France, Germany and Canada, have moved to require platforms like Netflix and Amazon to invest in local content. All this government can do is dither and delay. He's all over the shop.
I refer you to Amanda Meade's article from 1 April this year in the Guardian:
'As the green paper proposes, as well as reducing the Australian content spend that Foxtel has, we will for the first time impose an Australian content spend requirement on the streaming platforms,' Fletcher told ABC radio Melbourne. 'The idea would be to harmonise both of those at 5%.'
So he tries to halve the content obligations on subscription TV, yet he says he wants to bring in this harmonisation. He has no idea; he is making it up. The article goes on to say:
A spokesman for Fletcher confirmed there was no current proposal for a 5% quota for the streaming giants but declined to elaborate on what the minister meant.
What did the minister actually mean? What could he possibly have meant?
This is, as I said, in 2019:
In 2019 Fletcher said that Netflix, YouTube and other streaming companies could be forced to produce more Australian content, but two years later there was no policy.
Absolutely no idea—a complete shambles! He is making it up as he goes along, and now he has been completely repudiated by the crossbench. (Extension of time granted) He has failed to 'make it Australian'. He has done the wrong thing by Australian creatives. Not only that; as I said, he has lost the confidence of his own side. Government senators literally served up his backside in this report to the Senate inquiry into this bill. His own team backed Labor's amendment to omit schedule 1 from this bill. They sent the minister packing back to his own desk and said, 'Make it Australian.'
This minister is only too happy to cosy up to Hollywood, be it Ron Howard or The Rock. He even had an op-ed in the Courier Mail today, which would have to be the most whiny man-child piece of drivel I have read in a long time. I can assure the minister: Premier Palaszczuk has no idea who you are, so don't worry about it! He was trying to claim credit for the success of Queensland in attracting screen production. But while the minister obsesses over Hollywood he's trying to halve Australian content obligations for subscription broadcasters, which would mean fewer Australian stories on our screens and fewer jobs for our creatives.
Going to community TV—I'll pick up on the comments of the member for Mayo, which I back: someone who does know who the minister is, though, is deputy mayor Nicholas Reece—a bit of a star on Sky 'after dark'—who has quite correctly described the minister's decision to kick community TV off the air as 'boneheaded, almost bloody minded'. Not only has this minister lost his own side; he's lost Sky 'after dark'! When you lose Sky 'after dark', you should really start considering a new career path!
We were very pleased to see the Senate's support for an amendment to keep community TV on the air. This has been a hard-fought campaign by the sector and by the members representing those areas where community TV is still around; there are not that many areas, unfortunately. It is clear that this amendment overrides the minister's discretion on community TV—a discretion he has shown he can't be trusted with. He can't be trusted to exercise his discretion in accordance with the objects of the Broadcasting Services Act or the radcomms act to encourage localism and the efficient use of the radio frequency spectrum. The government's support for this amendment is literally a cry for help: 'Please save us from our own minister! Save us from a mess of our minister's making!'
As I said, Labor applauds the community TV sector—the staff, the volunteers and the supporters—who have sent a very loud and clear message that kicking community TV off the air, whilst there is no alternative use of that spectrum at the moment, is an act of vandalism. We on this side are proud to have backed community TV every step of the way to keep TV local. And we are proud to back the Make It Australian campaign for the Australian screen sector. Not only do Labor reject this government's destructive plans to undermine Australian stories, local TV and Australian creatives; we reject this minister, who can't get anything right, gets every call wrong and doesn't even have the confidence of his own side. Labor will never be part of dismantling the rules that foster Australia's world-class screen sector which tells Australian stories to us and the world. This minister and this government should hurry up and 'make it Australian'.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Member for Bowman
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (16:34): I move:
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Brand from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House calls on the Prime Minister to discharge the Member for Bowman from the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training immediately.
This Prime Minister has stood by while the member for Bowman has been permitted to have a pay increase, work and continue to chair this standing committee in the midst of him treating women badly, trolling people on Facebook and continuing to behave badly. It is an absolutely outrageous position that the Prime Minister continues to support the member for Bowman. He should be discharged immediately from his position on the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (16:34): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Brand be no further heard.
The House divided. [16:39]
(The Speaker—Hon Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (16:43): Is the motion seconded?
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (16:43): I second the motion. The member for Bowman's behaviour brings shame on this parliament and everyone in it.
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (16:43): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member for Canberra be no further heard.
The House divided. [16:44]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (16:47): The question now is that the motion moved by the member for Brand be disagreed to.
The House divided. [16:47]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The SPEAKER (16:47): This would be a good point—last evening, with respect to these motions, I said I wasn't making a ruling but that I'd reflect on the same-motion rule. Obviously that has some components—motions can't be identical in wording. That's the most basic thing, and these motions certainly haven't been, but what the standing orders make clear, and specifically standing order 114(b), is:
… the Speaker may disallow any motion or amendment which he or she considers is the same in substance…
That is, it's the same question that the House is being asked to determine. I pointed out yesterday that the Practice referred to a number of examples. Not many, I have to say, which is why I wanted to reflect on it and have a look at them. They are 1947, 1954 and I think 2009, and that's about it. So, I'm not going to take you back to 1947, I promise you.
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Well, if you want me to, that's okay. I have reflected on it and I have, as you'd expect me to do, looked at those examples. What I'm going to rule on is that these motions have been to suspend standing orders, so the question that's been before the House for members to determine is, given there's an order of business for the day, should standing orders be suspended or not to deal with this matter? That is if the substance of the issues that would be debated if standing orders were suspended have not been considered by the House. So my attitude—and I think it's best to make this clear-cut for the certainty of members—is the suspension motions can keep being moved, although not more than one a day, because the House has the opportunity to weigh the business of the House against any suspension. So that, I think, is okay given that it's a motion to suspend standing orders. If standing orders were suspended and the substance of the motion was then debated—that is, debated for a period of time where members of the House were able to consider the arguments of each side—that would then allow the House to make a decision. Then, once that was done, those motions couldn't be entertained any more on the matters that are there. So if there were differing matters in the future that would be a separate question. I hope I've made that clear. As I said, there are only three examples, so the Speaker, I should say, has used that power quite sparingly. But I think that is a fair attitude for the House.
Online Safety Bill 2021
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Opp (1) [Sheet 1319]
Clause 5, page 13 (lines 15 to 17), omit the definition of serious harm to a person's mental health, substitute:
serious harm to a person ' s mental health includes:
(a) serious psychological harm; and
(b) serious distress;
but does not include mere ordinary emotional reactions such as those of only distress, grief, fear or anger.
(2) Opp (1) [Sheet 1316]
Page 121 (after line 9), after clause 141, insert:
141A Publication of notice where no body or association represents a section of the online industry
(1) If the Commissioner is satisfied that a particular section of the online industry is not represented by a body or association, the Commissioner may publish a notice in the Gazette:
(a) stating that, if such a body or association were to come into existence within a specified period, the Commissioner would be likely to give a notice to that body or association under subsection 141(1); and
(b) setting out the matter or matters relating to online activities that would be likely to be specified in the subsection 141(1) notice.
(2) The period specified in a notice under subsection (1) must run for at least 60 days.
(3) Opp (2) [Sheet 1316]
Clause 145, page 122 (line 12), at the end of subclause (1), add:
if:
(a) the Commissioner has made a request under section 141 in relation to the development of an industry code and one or more of the following conditions is satisfied:
(i) the request is not complied with;
(ii) if a draft code is developed by the body or association—the draft does not contain appropriate community safeguards to deal with one or more matters specified in the request;
(iii) if indicative targets for achieving progress in the development of the code were specified in the notice of request—any of those indicative targets were not met;
(iv) the request is complied with, but the Commissioner subsequently refuses to register the code; or
(b) the Commissioner has published a notice under subsection 141A(1) in relation to a particular section of the online industry that is not represented by a body or association and all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) the notice states that, if such a body or association were to come into existence within a specified period, the Commissioner would be likely to give a notice to that body or association under subsection 141(1);
(ii) the notice sets out one or more matters relating to the online activities of the participants in that section of the industry that would be specified in a notice under subsection 141(1);
(iii) no such body or association comes into existence within the period specified in the notice; or
(c) an industry code that applies to participants in a particular section of an online industry has been registered under section 140 for at least 180 days and all of the following conditions are met:
(i) the Commissioner is satisfied that the code is deficient;
(ii) the Commissioner has given the body or association that developed the code a written notice requesting that deficiencies in the code be addressed within a specified period;
(iii) the period specified under subparagraph (ii) ends and the Commissioner is satisfied that the deficiencies in the code have not been adequately addressed.
(4) Opp (3) [Sheet 1316]
Clause 145, page 122 (after line 14), after subclause (1), insert:
(1A) For the purposes of subparagraph (1) (c) (i), an industry code that applies to participants in a particular section of an online industry and deals with one or more matters relating to the online activities of those participants is deficient if:
(a) the code is not operating to provide appropriate community safeguards in relation to one or more of those matters; or
(b) the code is not otherwise operating to regulate adequately participants in that section of the online industry in relation to that matter or those matters.
(1B) The Commissioner must not determine a standard under subsection (1) that applies to participants in a particular section of the online industry unless the Commissioner is satisfied that it is necessary or convenient for the Commissioner to determine a standard in order to:
(a) provide appropriate community safeguards in relation to one or more matters relating to the online activities of those participants; or
(b) otherwise regulate adequately participants in that section of the online industry in relation to that matter or those matters.
(5) Govt (1) [Sheet SW125]
At the end of clause 181, page 146 (after line 23), add:
(4) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a function or power conferred by subsection 220A(1) (which deals with the formulation or variation of the internal review scheme).
(6) Govt (2) [Sheet SW125]
Clause 182, page 146 (after line 32), after subclause (3), insert:
(3A) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a function or power conferred by subsection 220A(1) (which deals with the formulation or variation of the internal review scheme).
(3B) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to a function or power conferred by the internal review scheme (see section 220A).
(7) Govt (3) [Sheet SW125]
Clause 183, page 148 (line 4), before "The Commissioner must", insert "(1)".
(8) Govt (4) [Sheet SW125] (As amended by Opp (1) to (3) [Sheet 1315])
At the end of clause 183, page 148 (after line 9), add:
(2) A report under subsection (1) relating to a financial year must set out the following:
(aa) the number of objection notices given to the Commissioner under section 33 during that year;
(a) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 49 during that year;
(b) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 56 during that year;
(c) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 65 during that year;
(d) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 66 during that year;
(e) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 70 during that year;
(f) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 77 during that year;
(g) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 78 during that year;
(h) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 79 during that year;
(i) the number of directions given by the Commissioner under section 83 during that year;
(j) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 88 during that year;
(k) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 89 during that year;
(l) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 90 during that year;
(la) the number of requests made by the Commissioner under section 95 during that year;
(m) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 99 during that year;
(n) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 109 during that year;
(o) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 110 during that year;
(p) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 114 during that year;
(q) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 115 during that year;
(r) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 119 during that year;
(s) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 120 during that year;
(t) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 124 during that year;
(u) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 128 during that year;
(v) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 143 during that year;
(w) the number of directions given by the Commissioner under section 154 during that year;
(x) the number of applications made by the Commissioner under section 156 during that year;
(y) the number of applications made by the Commissioner under section 157 during that year;
(z) the number of applications made by the Commissioner under section 158 during that year;
(za) the number of applications made by the Commissioner under section 159 during that year;
(zb) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 194 during that year;
(zc) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 199 during that year;
(zd) the number of notices given by the Commissioner under section 203 during that year;
(ze) the number of decisions that were reviewed by the Commissioner under the internal review scheme (see section 220A) during that year;
(zf) the number of applications that were received by the Commissioner under the internal review scheme (see section 220A) during that year;
(zg) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to cyber‑bullying material targeted at an Australian child during that year;
(zh) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to non‑consensual sharing of intimate images during that year;
(zi) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to cyber‑abuse material targeted at an Australian adult during that year;
(zj) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to material that depicts abhorrent violent conduct during that year;
(zk) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to class 1 material during that year;
(zl) the number of informal notices given, and informal requests made, by the Commissioner to a person in relation to class 2 material during that year;
(zm) the number and percentage of complaints made to the Commissioner during that year for cyber‑bullying material targeted at an Australian child by ground or category of harm, with such grounds or categories of harm to be determined by the Commissioner;
(zn) the number and percentage of complaints made to the Commissioner during that year for non‑consensual sharing of intimate images by ground or category of harm, with such grounds or categories of harm to be determined by the Commissioner;
(zo) the number and percentage of complaints made to the Commissioner during that year for cyber‑abuse material targeted at an Australian adult by ground or category of harm, with such grounds or categories of harm to be determined by the Commissioner;
(zp) the number and percentage of complaints made to the Commissioner during that year under the online content scheme by ground or category of harm, with such grounds or categories of harm to be determined by the Commissioner.
(9) Opp (1 ) [Sheet 1304]
Page 148 (after line 9), after clause 183, insert:
183A Advisory committees
(1) The Commissioner may, by writing, establish advisory committees to assist the Commissioner in performing any of the Commissioner's functions.
(2) An advisory committee consists of such persons as the Commissioner from time to time appoints to the committee.
(3) The Commissioner may revoke a person's appointment to an advisory committee.
(4) The Commissioner may give an advisory committee written directions as to:
(a) the way in which the committee is to carry out its functions; and
(b) the procedures to be followed in relation to meetings.
(5) An appointment to an advisory committee is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.
(10) Opp (2) [Sheet 1304]
Clause 184, page 148 (line 18), at the end of subclause (2), add:
; (c) the making available of the Consumer Consultative Forum established by the ACMA to assist the Commissioner to perform the Commissioner's functions in relation to matters affecting Australians.
(11) Govt (5) [Sheet SW125]
Heading to clause 220, page 165 (line 6), at the end of the heading, add "by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal".
(12) Govt (6) [Sheet SW125]
Heading to subclause 220(2), page 165 (line 11), omit "cyber‑bulling", substitute "cyber‑bullying".
(13) Govt (7) [Sheet SW125]
Subclause 220(2), page 165 (line 14), omit ", 78, 88 or 89", substitute "or 88".
(14) Govt (8) [Sheet SW125]
Subclause 220(4), page 166 (line 2), omit ", 78, 88 or 89", substitute "or 88".
(15) Govt (9) [Sheet SW125]
Paragraph 220(5) (b), page 166 (line 7), omit ", 88 or 89", substitute "or 88".
(16) Govt (10) [Sheet SW125]
Clause 220, page 167 (after line 4), after subclause (10), insert:
Removal notice—end ‑user
(10A) An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Commissioner under section 78 or 89 to give a removal notice.
(17) Govt (11) [Sheet SW125]
Page 168 (after line 29), after clause 220, insert:
220A Internal review of decisions
(1) The Commissioner:
(a) must, by notifiable instrument, formulate a scheme (the internal review scheme) for and in relation to the review by the Commissioner of decisions of a kind referred to in section 220; and
(b) may, by notifiable instrument, vary the internal review scheme.
(2) The internal review scheme may empower the Commissioner to:
(a) on application, review such a decision; and
(b) affirm, vary or revoke the decision concerned.
(3) The internal review scheme may provide that the Commissioner's decision on review of a decision has effect as if it had been made under the provision under which the original decision was made.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not limit subsection (1).
(5) The Commissioner must publish the internal review scheme on the Commissioner's website.
(18) Opp (3) [Sheet 1304]
Clause 223, page 170 (after line 16), after paragraph (1) (a), insert:
(aa) a member of an advisory committee established under section 183A;
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (16:53): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
This is the final stage in a process under which the Morrison government is giving effect to a commitment we took to the 2019 election that we would legislate an online safety act, which would consolidate and build on the very significant reforms we have made in the area of online safety since our Liberal-National government first came to power in 2013. We introduced and passed legislation to establish what was then called the Children's eSafety Commissioner and established a scheme to deal with the cyberbullying of Australian children. That scheme has worked effectively. We subsequently expanded the responsibilities of the office and changed its title to be the eSafety Commissioner, with responsibility for matters relating to online safety concerning all Australians. We passed legislation to deal with the terrible problem of the unauthorised sharing of intimate images. When that occurs, victims find it an absolutely devastating thing. And it is something that women overwhelmingly are the victims of. That has also been an effective regime. We introduced legislation following the abhorrent Christchurch mosque attack, which involved live streaming of the murder of over 50 people—absolutely abhorrent and appalling. We introduced legislation to deal with abhorrent violent material online, and that's a matter that the eSafety Commissioner has had responsibility for for some time now.
In the bill that has now passed the Senate and that previously passed the House, we've added extra provisions, including the establishment of a scheme to deal with the serious cyberabuse of Australian adults. We are continuing to improve the protections and the resources that the eSafety Commissioner has. This is about assisting Australians to have the protection of the rule of law when they interact in the digital town square, just as people rightly expect, and have the benefit of, the rule of law and its protections when they interact in the physical town square. The government will be supporting the amendments that were made in the Senate last night.
I also want to take this opportunity to make a statement about the way that the eSafety Commissioner will deal with its code-making power and the approach it will take to prioritising matters to be the subject of codes. It's the primary responsibility of the digital technology industry to create products and services that Australians can use safely. That's why, under the bill that's before the House now, sections of the industry will be required to create new and strengthened industry codes which meet the government's expectations on behalf of the Australian community to keep users of online services safe. Those codes may require service providers to provide end users with access to technological solutions to help them limit access to class 1 and class 2 material. They may also require industry to provide customers with the option of subscribing to a filtered internet carriage service. eSafety will develop and release a position paper to guide code development. The paper will outline expectations, setting clear boundaries for industry on minimum requirements for what eSafety wishes to see in the codes. Through this process, as well as in the annual publication of regulatory priorities, eSafety will focus on the most harmful material as a priority.
One of the reasons we're taking a risk-informed approach is to support industry to focus its efforts towards products that have a higher chance of facilitating harm. The government understands this is a significant task for the industry, but it's an important one. It's part of the legislative scheme and we expect the technology industry to step up its game to make sure that its products are safe. I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:57): The government cites this Online Safety Bill as evidence of its commitment to the online safety of Australian women. I say to the House that you can see the commitment of the government to the online safety of women in this country every day in this chamber: when they are given an option to condemn the actions of the member for Bowman and they refuse. You can see the evidence of their commitment to the online safety of Australian women every day in this chamber when the member for Bowman comes and sits in this chamber and is still in his role as the Chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training.
We pursued this bill through Senate estimates. We asked, 'What is the purpose of this bill?' This is a bill designed to stop campaigns of online harassment, bullying and intimidation of women like the multiyear campaign conducted by the member for Bowman. We asked officials in the department of the minister sitting across the table, the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts, to describe and evaluate the kind of behaviour that the member for Bowman has engaged in. We asked, 'Is a bill like this something that could probably do something about this kind of behaviour?' Their response was:
…absolutely the intention behind this new bill, when it's passed, is to provide an avenue for people experiencing that kind of activity—to have a pathway to make complaints and have someone able to take some action.
Don't look for those opposite to take action on this, because the divisions that took place before this bill was called on were the 41st time those opposite had been given an opportunity to take action on this. Forty-one times we've given those opposite the opportunity to show their commitment to the online safety of Australian women and to force the member for Bowman to honour his commitment to stand down as the chair of the education committee. Forty-one times they've marched in, followed the party line and defended him.
Not only that, they have repeatedly gagged Labor women who have come into this chamber and sought to hold them to account. Indeed, just in this term they have gagged the member for Newcastle, the member for Cowan, the member for Jagajaga, the member for Corangamite, the member for Lalor, the member for Cooper, the member for Sydney, the member for Franklin, the member for Parramatta, the member for Dunkley, the member for Eden-Monaro, the member for Macquarie, the member for Griffith, the member for Werriwa, the member for Brand and, just now, the member for Canberra. Not only that, they've had to put up with the member for Mackellar mansplaining to them the way that microphones work in this chamber.
This government's attitude to the online safety of women is clear for all to see. It's just like everything with this government: they're there for the announcement; they're not there for the delivery. You always have to check the fine print with this government. This Prime Minister is like the bloke you meet on the beach at Bali selling you the genuine Rolex watch. The warranty is going to come in the mail when you get back from your holiday, right? He's like a travelling snake oil salesman moving through regional Queensland. He's flogging the miracle cure, saying, 'This'll cure what ails you,' and moving on to the next town by the time the miracle cure is shown to be bunk.
You can't trust anything this government says. They don't follow through. Their actions don't meet their words. The member for Bowman said that he would resign. The Prime Minister said that he would resign. The Prime Minister said that his actions were totally unacceptable. Since that time, the member for Bowman has come into this chamber and apologised in this chamber, grovellingly—although he didn't seem to be able to articulate what he had done wrong. He went immediately from this chamber to Facebook, where he said that he didn't know what he was apologising for and it wasn't really an apology. He then went to empathy training. What he learnt in empathy training was to come out of empathy training and recant on his apology in totality.
A mate observed his behaviour, thought it was a bit weird and said he should go to see a doctor, and the member for Bowman had the hide to blame his appalling trolling, bullying and harassment campaigns online on ADHD. This is a real medical condition. People with ADHD are responsible for their behaviour. It's not an excuse. It doesn't cause people to maintain dozens of fake Facebook pages under the guise of community groups and local news organisations, harassing local constituents. That's not a symptom of ADHD. That's a system of an out-of-control member whom those opposite will do nothing to hold to account.
What has happened in this chamber in response to the member for Bowman's actions is a disgrace. A great Australian once said that the standard you walk past is the standard you accept. This government accepts the member for Bowman's behaviour, and we see it writ large today in the re-election of the Deputy Prime Minister. Australian women have no friend in this government.
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (17:03): Labor welcomes the passage of the Online Safety Bill 2021 as amended. The safety of Australians is paramount, and Labor has been engaged in constructive good-faith negotiations to improve this bill. So Labor supports this bill as amended in the Senate, but we are concerned about the time it has taken to get here, as well as the lack of process on some key issues in the areas of online safety, such as addressing online hate speech that targets incitement to violence for groups as distinct from individuals.
It's coming up to three years since the October 2018 Report of the statutory review of the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and the review of schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (online content scheme) by Lynelle Briggs AO, who recommended a new online safety act. Since then, this minister has repeatedly spruiked the hitherto non-existent online safety act in response to concerns about online harms, including online hate speech and racism in Australia following the Christchurch terrorist atrocity and graphic online content in the wake of a self-harm video circulating on social media. Labor notes that the minister was slow to release the exposure draft of legislation for consultation last year, then rushed the introduction of this bill into parliament just eight business days after consultation on the exposure draft had concluded. There were hundreds of submissions, but the reality is that the rush to introduction did undermine some stakeholder confidence in the consultation process. We have had this delay since 2018 and then a rush to introduction.
Furthermore, this bill interacts with Australia's classification laws, yet the review of Australian classification regulation is also delayed on this minister's watch and has fallen out of step with this bill. Meanwhile, the government blocks further progress by sitting on a report that, if released, could genuinely assist in bettering Australia's approach to online safety.
This House should know that this government still has not released the report of an expert working group which was convened by the eSafety Commissioner and in which industry had participated. In the report of the inquiry into age verification for online wagering and online pornography, entitled Protecting the age of innocence, by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Labor members requested that the government reclassify the report and make it public so the broad range of stakeholders supportive of online safety may have the benefit of that work. Online safety is an area of bipartisanship. It's a matter that goes to the safety of Australians in our modern world. So Labor is disappointed that the government continues to withhold this report, which remains cabinet in confidence, and again we encourage its release.
As I said, the safety of Australians online is of paramount importance. Labor did not oppose these bills in the House, on the basis that government amendments would be forthcoming. So we did engage in constructive good faith to understand and address the concerns we had with these bills and the concerns of industry. Overall, the engagement has been productive. The opposition appreciates the attention of the minister, the department, the commissioner and staff to Labor's questions and suggestions. Some of Labor's concerns have been addressed with proposed government amendments to the bill as well as with the supplementary EM and the further addendum to the EM. Some of Labor's amendments to the bill were supported in the Senate, and Labor thanks those members who supported them, to improve the legislation and the strength of the framework.
For three budgets in a row since 2019 I have asked the minister about what he is doing to address racist hate speech online. For three years running I have not had an answer. In 2019 he made a general reference to work on the Online Safety Act, in 2020 he simply failed to answer and in 2021 he failed to answer it again. So I ask once again: Minister: what steps have you taken, including in consultation with the Attorney-General and other relevant ministers, to address the issue of online racism in Australia?
When I first asked this question in 2019 it was in reference to the terrorist atrocity committed by an Australian citizen in Christchurch and serious warnings about the rise of right-wing extremism, online hate speech and racism in Australia. I asked the minister if he would ensure that Australians, including Australians of Muslim faith, are kept safe online by amending Australia's e-safety laws or by driving the adoption of an EU-style code of conduct for countering illegal hate speech online. In 2019 the minister responded to this question by saying: 'I make the point that we are committed to introducing a new online safety act.' As I said, in 2020 and again in 2021, the minister simply failed to answer my question.
In late 2020, the minister finally released the exposure draft of the Online Safety Bill for public consultation. (Extension of time granted) In its submission to the exposure draft, the Online Hate Prevention Institute stated:
Significant online harm also results from hate and incitement to violence that targets segments of the community, as distinct from the cyberbullying of individuals. These is a significant gap of coverage in this area. Attributes such as race, religion, mental or physical illness or disability, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, intersex status and others are used to target segments of the community. In the most serious cases online hate against these groups involves incitement not only to hate, but also to violence. Preventing online harms requires action well before it reaches that point.
and that:
… a takedown power covering incitement to hate, against both individuals and groups, is urgently needed.
Minister, does the Online Safety Bill now before the parliament address racist hate speech and incitement to violence that targets groups as distinct from individuals? And, if not, why not?
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (17:09): I rise to speak on the Online Safety Bill 2021 and to endorse every word of the contribution of the member for Gellibrand. Minister, how is it that you would expect women across this country to believe this government's commitment to online safety when this government won't do anything about the member for Bowman and his admitted online activities, and when women across this country have seen constituents of the member for Bowman go on television and subject themselves to exposure across the country in order to call out his behaviour, which, in one case, caused a women to be suicidal?
How is it that this government thinks that it can sit there with a straight face—all of the members of the government—and say, 'Do as we say but not as a member of our government does'?
I'm rising today more in sorrow than in anger. I've been angry and the women in my community have been angry at the way the member for Bowman has behaved and at the way the Prime Minister and the ministers in this government have behaved, in their failure to make their own accountable for their online behaviour. But something has shifted, at least, in me today. Now I'm just so sad to have to stand here, because I know that there are people on your side of the chamber, Minister Fletcher—and some of them are in the chamber at the moment—who have a deep commitment to online safety, who have themselves experienced significant online harassment and who want change. I know that, and I can see members of the government in the chamber who are in that position. I feel sad for them that they have to sit there and vote time and time again to protect the member for Bowman.
But it goes beyond the member for Bowman, doesn't it? He's now become a symbol of this government's refusal to take responsibility and hold to account people who are on the government side—an example of the lack of consequences of bad behaviour for people who are part of this government. It is sad for democracy. It's sad for the people of Australia when their trust in government is diminished time and time again when they watch people who are supposed to be the leaders of this country refusing to act in a way that families in Australia do every single day. When a member of their family behaves badly, they say to them, 'You have to accept the consequences of your behaviour.' Parents say, 'If it hurts me that I have to punish you for your behaviour, I have to accept that, because taking responsibility and being held responsible is part of being a good citizen.'
In terms of online safety generally—and the government's failure to do something as simple as to hold the member for Bowman to account for his own words, in that he said he would resign from his parliamentary roles, let alone holding him to account for his behaviour—let's put this debate into some wider context. Let's talk about the domestic violence crisis in this country. Over and over again, people on both sides of this chamber acknowledge that the domestic violence crisis and the fact that one woman is killed every week by their partner are manifestations of gender inequality, of disrespect for women and of behaviours like those that we've seen from the member for Bowman, who has admitted them. They start off as sexual harassment and trolling and lead to a culture in this country where one woman a week is killed. That's why you have to make him be responsible. It's that important. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Financial Regulator Assessment Authority Bill 2021
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (17:14): I move:
That the amendments be considered immediately.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (17:15): This is just briefly—I don't want to detain the members of the House for any longer than is absolutely necessary. I just think it's important that members understand the matter that's being voted on, and I note the attendance in the House at the moment by the Leader of the Greens, the member for Melbourne. For the benefit of members: this bill is one of those rare occasions where a matter has moved through the House, has been amended in the public interest in the Senate on the basis of a Greens amendment in the Senate and is an amendment which has attracted the support of both the government and the Labor opposition. So I thank the members in the other place who raised this particular matter.
For the benefit of members: it concerns an oversight body which was recommended by Commissioner Hayne and arose out of the royal commission recommendation 6.14. It recommended that the bodies ASIC and APRA be subject to a review every two years by a standing independent body. The way the government transformed that into law had the body established, but proposed that a representative of the Department of the Treasury be included on that independent review body. It was pointed out in the Senate, correctly in our view, that if there's a representative from the Department of the Treasury—that is, an executive agency—it's hardly separate and independent in reviewing those other two agencies. So Labor supports the proposition and wishes its speedy passage through this place.
Question agreed to.
Senate’s amendments—
(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 1), omit ", the Departmental member".
(2) Clause 5, page 3 (lines 9 and 10), omit the definition of appointed member.
(3) Clause 5, page 3 (line 18), omit the definition of Departmental member.
(4) Clause 5, page 4 (line 6), omit "and the Departmental member".
(5) Clause 10, page 7 (line 8), omit paragraph (b).
(6) Clause 22, page 14 (lines 5 and 6), omit "The other member is the Secretary or the Secretary's nominee.".
(7) Division 2, clause 23, page 15 (lines 1 to 11), omit the Division.
(8) Heading to Division 3, page 16 (line 1), omit "Appointed members", substitute "Members".
(9) Clause 24, page 16 (line 3), omit "Appointed members", substitute "Members".
(10) Clause 24, page 16 (line 5), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A Member".
(11) Clause 24, page 16 (line 8), omit "an appointed member", substitute "a member".
(12) Clause 24, page 16 (line 15), omit "appointed".
(13) Clause 24, page 16 (line 16), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(14) Clause 25, page 16 (line 18), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(15) Clause 25, page 16 (line 20), omit "an appointed member", substitute "a member".
(16) Clause 26, page 16 (line 22) to page 17 (line 18), omit "an appointed member" (wherever occurring), substitute "a member".
(17) Clause 27, page 17 (line 20), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(18) Clause 27, page 17 (line 22), omit "appointed".
(19) Clause 27, page 17 (line 25), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(20) Clause 28, page 17 (line 30), omit "appointed".
(21) Clause 29, page 18 (line 2), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(22) Clause 30, page 18 (line 6), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(23) Clause 31, page 18 (line 10), omit "an appointed member", substitute "a member".
(24) Clause 31, page 18 (line 17), omit "appointed".
(25) Clause 32, page 18 (line 21), omit "An appointed member", substitute "A member".
(26) Clause 33, page 18 (line 26) to page 19 (line 21), omit "an appointed member" (wherever occurring), substitute "a member".
(27) Clause 48, page 29 (lines 19 to 21), omit subclause (2).
(28) Clause 50, page 30 (lines 30 to 32), omit subclause (3).
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) (17:17): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Human Rights Committee
Report
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (17:17): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report: Report 8 of 2021—Report, 23 June 2021.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Dr WEBSTER: by leave—I am pleased to speak about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Right's eighth scrutiny report of 2021. As usual, this report contains a technical examination of legislation with regard to Australia's obligations under international human rights law.
In this report, the committee has considered eight new bills and 197 new legislative instruments. It has commented on 16 new legislative instruments and concluded its consideration of one legislative instrument. In particular, the committee has considered two legislative instruments that were made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The first instrument extends the human biosecurity emergency period for a further three months until 17 September 2021 and, consequently, extends existing emergency determinations, including the travel ban on Australian citizens and permanent residents leaving Australia.
The second instrument temporarily banned certain persons from entering Australia if they had been in India. To the extent that these instruments prevent the spread of COVID-19 in Australia, they would likely promote the rights to health and life for persons in Australia. However, these instruments also necessarily engage and limit other rights, such as the right to freedom of movement. While the instruments appear to pursue a legitimate objective and would likely be effective to achieve that objective, there are questions regarding proportionality. In relation to the instrument that extends the human biosecurity emergency period, the committee is seeking further information about how the emergency determinations and the relevant exemptions from the travel ban are applied in practice. In relation to the instrument that temporarily banned persons travelling from India to Australia, the committee concluded that questions remain as to whether the measure was proportionate, noting that there were extremely limited exceptions to the application of the direction and no exemption process was available.
The committee has reiterated that, given the potential impact on human rights of legislative instruments dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be appropriate for all such legislative instruments to be accompanied by a detailed statement of compatibility, even if it is not strictly required under law. The committee is also seeking further information about 12 legislative instruments made under the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945. These instruments list almost 300 individuals as subject to sanctions, having the effect of freezing their existing money and assets. The committee notes with some concern that, while the legislative instruments were made over the last 20 years, they were only recently registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. The committee notes that sanctions regimes are important mechanisms for applying pressure with a view to ending international human rights violations. However, sanctions regimes also operate independently of the criminal justice system and, to the extent that they affect individuals in Australia, may engage and limit the rights to a private life and fair hearing, and the committee is seeking further information in relation to this. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis, and with these comments I commend this report to the chamber.
BILLS
Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021
Consideration of Senate Message
Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.
Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately.
Senate's amendments—
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table), omit the table, substitute:
Commencement information |
||
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Provisions |
Commencement |
Date/Details |
1. The whole of this Act |
A single day to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if the provisions do not commence within the period of 12 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the day after the end of that period. |
|
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 21), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "the day this definition commences".
(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 4 (line 22), omit "1 July 2021", substitute "the day this definition commences".
(4) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (after line 28), after the definition of mutual recognition principle, insert:
mutual recognition matters has the same meaning as in the Mutual Recognition (New South Wales) Act 1992 (NSW).
(5) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (lines 3 to 11), omit the definition of pre‑adoption State, substitute:
pre ‑adoption State means a State (other than a Territory) that is a participating jurisdiction, but which has not done either of the following:
(a) before the enactment of the Mutual Recognition Amendment Act 2021, referred the mutual recognition matters to the Parliament of the Commonwealth to the extent of the making of laws with respect to those matters by making express amendments to this Act;
(b) adopted this Act, as amended by the Mutual Recognition Amendment Act 2021.
(6) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (lines 1 to 12), omit subsection 5(4), substitute:
Definition of participating jurisdiction
(4) A participating jurisdiction is:
(a) a State (other than a Territory) for which there is in force an Act of its Parliament that, for the purposes of paragraph 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution:
(i) refers to the Parliament of the Commonwealth the power to enact this Act as originally enacted; or
(ii) adopts this Act as originally enacted, whether with or without subsequent amendments; or
(b) a Territory (being the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory) for which there is in force an Act of its legislature that:
(i) requests the Parliament of the Commonwealth to enact this Act as originally enacted; or
(ii) enables this Act as originally enacted, whether with or without subsequent amendments, to apply in relation to the Territory.
(7) Schedule 1, item 87, page 30 (line 29), omit "particular".
(8) Schedule 1, item 87, page 31 (line 34), omit "States;", substitute "States.".
(9) Schedule 1, item 87, page 32 (line 1), omit "until the end of that 6 month period.".
(10) Schedule 1, item 87, page 32 (lines 4 to 9), omit subsection 42T(2).
(11) Schedule 1, item 87, page 32 (lines 14 to 21), omit all the words from and including "earlier" to the end of subsection 42T(5), substitute "earlier a declaration under subsection (1) is repealed at the end of 12 months after this section commences".
Mr MORTON (Tangney—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters and Assistant Minister to the Minister for the Public Service) (17:22): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The passing of the Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021 today is a significant economic reform that will benefit businesses, workers and consumers across the country. With these reforms a licensed worker will no longer need to apply and pay for another licence to work across state borders. It will be faster, less expensive and require less paperwork for a person to take up a job opportunity in another state and for a business to bid for work on an interstate project. Minor and technical amendments to the bill were moved by the government in the Senate to ensure that the scheme will work as intended and to provide greater clarity to workers, businesses and regulators for a smooth transition. I thank the crossbench members in that place for their support to pass those amendments and this bill. This bill delivers on a request from state and territory treasurers in 2019 to better support the movement of skilled labour between the states and territories. From the outset this was a very ambitious reform. It was urgency driven at the time because of the bushfires that devastated Australia and the need for skilled workers to respond quickly to those communities that were recovering. The COVID-19 crisis heightened the need for governments to work together to enable workers and businesses to more easily navigate Australia's economic recovery.
The Mutual Recognition Amendment Bill 2021 is the result of a collaborative effort between the Commonwealth government and all state and territory governments. I'd like to particularly acknowledge the Treasurer for his work with his state and territory counterparts and the Deregulation Taskforce, which worked on the development of this reform. The Deregulation Taskforce is located within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I would like to thank Anna Heaney, Jason McDonald and Simon Duggan for the role they played in these reforms. I would also like to thank the crossbench members in this place, who supported the passage of this bill, and in particular thank the member for Mayo and the member for Indi who understood the importance this would have for tradies in communities being able to move across state borders and, in the member for Indi's case, the importance of this for a border community that she represents. This bill builds on reforms that were introduced by the Keating government in 1992 to recognise occupational licences that are granted by other states. It was pursued by Craig Emerson when he was the minister responsible for these matters. I appreciate the advice and support that Craig has given me as we progressed these reforms together in recent months.
These reforms will grow the Australian economy. PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that $2.4 billion will be added to the economy over the next 10 years. This is pragmatic action to reduce red tape and to generate benefits without undermining the important safeguards that these regulations provide to the community. The implementation of automatic mutual recognition lies with the states and territories. The bill provides flexibility for states to tailor arrangements to suit their circumstances, and I urge them to do so in a way that ensures that those benefits are realised.
I am disappointed that a very sensible economic reform, which builds on the work of the Keating government in 1992, which has been supported by national cabinet—and we will see the Victorian government introduce legislation in their parliament tomorrow—did not get the support of the Australian Labor Party in this House and in the Senate, where they chose instead to vote with the Australian Greens against a practical economic reform that is very important to the Australian economic recovery.
Question agreed to.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Commonwealth government's abject failure to deliver durable reform to protect the environment and create jobs"—
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "whilst" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
":
(1) noting that the bill:
(a) does the bare minimum by giving the Minister unclear, discretionary powers to create weak environmental standards with poor oversight;
(b) establishes a watered-down Environmental Assurance Commissioner with limited powers and little independence, which is a far cry from the strong cop on the beat recommended by Professor Graeme Samuel AC in his Interim Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and
(c) will do little to protect Australia's precious environment or reverse the current extinction crisis;
(2) the House:
(a) declines to give the bill a second reading; and
(b) calls on the Government to instead pass the Commonwealth Environment Protection Authority Bill 2021, which sets up a completely independent body with the power to strengthen environmental regulation, ensure accountability and achieve real environmental outcomes".
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (17:26): I am in continuation and I want to conclude with some comments about the desperate state of one of the seven wonders of the world, the amazing Great Barrier Reef. This government commissioned the Samuel review, but is failing to adopt the recommendations of it. There were two reports by Professor Samuel, whose background, as we all know, is in business and in regulation through the ACCC. In his review, Professor Samuel said to this government:
Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. The pressures on the environment are significant—including land-use change, habitat loss and degradation, and feral animal and invasive plant species. The impact of climate change on the environment … will exacerbate pressures, contributing to further decline. Given its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats. The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.
That's what Professor Samuel said: 'The current environmental trajectory is unsustainable.' For most of us in this country it is unthinkable that, under this generation's stewardship, we could lose so much of the Great Barrier Reef that it will no longer be one of the seven wonders of the world and will no longer be something that we can deeply associate with being Australian—as even those of us who have never had the opportunity to go there do.
In the last 24 hours, the UNESCO World Heritage Committee provided a draft recommendation that the Great Barrier Reef should be listed as 'in danger'. It has been extraordinary to see the put-on surprise and consternation from ministers in this government. Imagine anyone suggesting that the Great Barrier Reef could be in danger! This government surely cannot pretend that it is unaware of the bleaching events in 2016, 2017 and 2020—all years that are part of the eight long years that this Liberal and National party government has been in government. Surely the Minister for the Environment is not suggesting to the people of Australia that she didn't know that, in December of last year, the body that advises the World Heritage Committee, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, issued a report downgrading the reef's prospects to 'critical'. Surely the current minister is not suggesting that she is unaware that the government's own agency, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, issued a report in 2019 downgrading the reef's prospects from 'poor' to 'very poor'. Surely this government is not trying to tell the Australian people that all is hunky-dory with the Great Barrier Reef because of their great environmental stewardship. Is this government honestly trying to persuade the Australian people that the report issued by the International Union for Conservation of Nature—which said that the slow progress towards targets, including water quality targets in the government's own Reef 2050 Plan, contributed to its findings—'took it by surprise' and that it was just unaware of that? Is this government asking how an international body charged with the protection of World Heritage areas would have the temerity to suggest that the Great Barrier Reef is in danger?
This government was supposed to finalise the Reef 2050 report in early 2021. But, under questioning in Senate estimates that occurred recently, we found out from the government and public servants that the government hasn't even provided the proposed final update to the respective ministers for their signatures. The government is even late in finalising the update for the Reef 2050 report! This is a minister who likes to pretend that this government is the world standard for reef protection. We have amazing scientists and marine biologists and people who work on the reef who are world leading in the work they're doing to protect the Great Barrier Reef, but this government isn't. This Morrison government isn't world leading.
And now we hear from the minister that, instead of fighting to protect the reef, she's going to be fighting to stop UNESCO from listing the reef as in danger because she has asserted that they've misled her and the government in some way. She said that UNESCO told her they wouldn't be recommending the listing. It should be of concern to every member of the government, as it is to every member of my community and to Australia, to hear that Dr Douvere, of UNESCO's World Heritage Centre in Paris, rejected what the Australian environment minister has said. Dr Douvere said there was no such indication given to the government, no indication they wouldn't be recommending the listing, and that no assurances had been provided. This is because they wouldn't normally be provided. What this government needs to do, and do urgently, is stop talking about protecting the barrier reef, stop talking about protecting the environment. Instead, it should adopt the Samuel review recommendations properly and work with us to make sure it gets done.
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (17:34): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. One reason it is such a privilege to be the member for Mayo—I've got to say, there are many!—is that my own values align closely with those of my community. There is no better example than this issue. The people of Mayo see the need for the value of developing our local economy and industries, and also have a deep connection to our pristine local environment and know the importance of nurturing and conserving it. They see how essential it is for economic development and environmental protection to work together and to build on each other.
Professor Samuel's review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act was comprehensive and damning. It found that the current regime is not fit for purpose. It is failing to promote economic development and is failing to protect the environment. It is a scandal that the current situation is this bad. And yet we have quiet. Why is this the case? The previous review, in 2010, found the same problem as Professor Samuel. Labor failed to act then, and the coalition, I believe, is failing to act now that it is in power. And it's because of those failures that our environment is now in a state of unsustainable decline. I believe, frankly, both parties should be ashamed.
What matters now is what happens next. The government proposes that we allow state governments to handle the entire project approvals process as long as they comply with federal standards. Centre Alliance has no problem with this as long as the standards effectively protect the environment, an independent regulator can monitor processes and outcomes, and there is a broader response to the Samuel review. However, this is not what the government is proposing. The standards that the government has proposed are simply not effective. Instead, they will lock in the current failing regime for at least another two years. The regulator, as proposed by the government, is not independent. Instead, it will be part of the department and subject to interference by the minister.
Further, the government has not published a response to the Samuel review and refuses to tell us if it ever will. We simply have no idea if it intends to walk away from reform after this bill is dealt with. It is simply not good enough. This is why Centre Alliance has been working with the Senate crossbench to ensure that the EPBC bills will not pass parliament in their current form. We are not opposed to reform; rather, we think it is necessary and long overdue. But it needs to be done right. And that's not what we have in front of us.
Senator Griff, in the other place, and I, and other crossbench senators, wrote collectively to the minister back in March, setting out what that means. Firstly, we want the government to work with industry and conservation groups to deliver better standards—but not in two years time; this needs to be done today. The Senate inquiry heard that those groups have already agreed to 80 per cent of Professor Samuel's standards. So let's adopt those agreed standards in this bill and set up a process to find common ground for the other 20 per cent. Secondly, we want the regulator to be genuinely independent. We want someone who can speak honestly and openly about the problems within the system and how to fix them. We want someone who is fearless. We will not get that in this bill. That's the only way to ensure the system is effective and to rebuild public confidence. Thirdly, we want a comprehensive response to the Samuel review, with a road map for implementation. This will give us confidence that the government is not going to walk away from the Samuel review after the bill has passed.
Those were our requests that we put in writing; requests that we believe are reasonable and responsible, will improve this bill and will deliver better environmental and economic outcomes. Disappointingly, the minister, I believe, hasn't considered any of our concerns. I certainly haven't seen a letter in response. It's for those reasons, and the lack of confidence of myself and my Centre Alliance colleague, Senator Stirling Griff, that we cannot support the bill before the House.
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (17:39): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. The legacy of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government when it comes to protecting our environment and protecting our incredible natural habitats, our biodiversity and our flora and fauna in this country is one of national shame. It is of national shame that this government have had eight long years, three terms—asking for four; asking for 12 years—of administering this country and, in that time, we have seen a missed opportunity of protecting and increasing the protections of our environment and our biodiversity.
The EPBC Act has an inbuilt review every 10 years. The government appointed Professor Graeme Samuel because they thought that the professor was going to give them what they wanted in the review—but he didn't. He did an outstanding review and he came up with some key recommendations when it comes to protecting our environment. Those recommendations revolve around a pretty clear, simple idea: that, in order to legislate and bring the EPBC Act into the 21st century, the key principle is that the government needs national standards when it comes to managing our environment. The federal government needs to have standards when it comes to managing our environment and our biodiversity in this country. But this is now the second amendment to the EPBC Act under this environment minister, and both times they have ignored this key recommendation of Professor Samuel—this key recommendation that says that Australia needs national standards when it comes to managing our environment.
But it's hardly surprising that the government are unable to bring in legislation that reflects Professor Samuel's recommendation—because they don't have national standards. Just like the way in which they've managed the pandemic, they're managing the environment by wanting to give all the responsibility to the states. That's what they did in the pandemic, and that's what they're trying to do with national environmental standards. The other key recommendation of Professor Samuel is that there should be a watchdog, an agency, to enforce the rules, to enforce these national standards, for managing our environment. But, of course, this government again has failed to meet the recommendations of Professor Samuel.
But Labor have a different approach. I, like many Labor true believers, was proud to come together at the Labor National Conference only a few months ago. We did it virtually. Sam Lane was the MC. It was a cracking affair. One of the great policy commitments that came out of the national conference was a complete rewrite of the EPBC Act—that we as the Labor Party would respect the science; that we believe in national standards when it comes to protecting our environment; that we on this side of the House don't want to see the continuation of decades of degradation, habitat removal and destruction of our natural wonders in this country; that we on this side of the House want to see strengthened environmental protections through the federal government, legislated through this place, in our national parliament. It should not be a responsibility and a standard that's given only to the states. This should be something that this House does—and what a legacy that would be.
But, of course, the government refuse to even respond to their own review, conducted by their own review process. They are incapable of even responding to that—much like the Halton review into quarantine. They set that up. Jane Halton came up with a whole range of recommendations and they've completely ignored her and sat on that as well. What's the point of having all these reviews by these eminent Australians if you are not going to listen to them and implement the recommendations? But that is the story of this government, and that is the story of the EPBC Act under this government.
If you want to see the commitment that this government and this Minister for the Environment have to the environment, you need only look at how quickly the minister was willing to withdraw her live exports bill when she got promoted into cabinet. There was a bill under the previous member for Corangamite—who's now a member of the other place—and under the member for Farrer. It's funny what a promotion will do! They were both committed to the cause, committed to protecting animals and committed to the welfare of our animals in this country, but that was quickly withdrawn once the Prime Minister—after a bit of a stint on the sidelines, I have to say. The minister went shopping on the Gold Coast and ended up losing her spot in the ministry. But then the Prime Minister brought her back into the cabinet on the condition that obviously, clearly the live export bill was withdrawn. If you want to see the commitment that this minister has to her values you only need to look at the fact that she was willing to withdraw her own bill.
You cannot have a discussion in this country about the EPBC Act, about the loss of habitat, about the loss of Australian wildlife without looking at Australia's contribution to the reduction of global emissions. This week—it's only Wednesday! It's extraordinary. It's only Wednesday. Goodness me, it has been a long week. It started this week by the return of the member for New England to the leadership of the National Party. If ever there were a party committed to the destruction of Australia's natural wildlife and habitat it is the National Party of Australia. I have serious, grave concerns about what's going to happen under the new returned leadership of the member for New England.
If you want to see the effects of global warming you only need to look at this week where UNESCO has designated the Great Barrier Reef as an extreme danger zone. There's every chance that our grandkids aren't going to see the Great Barrier Reef in the same way that we did. So what's the member for new England's idea? What does he want to do? He wants to make the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—not the fossil fuel climate finance corporation; the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—a government body that can invest in building and invest in coal-fired power stations. I've got news for the member for New England: there won't be another coal-fired power station built in this country—it just makes no economic sense—unless the government is willing to spend billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to basically buy and fund the whole thing. That's the only way. I know they've made promises to build the Collinsville power station but it ain't going to happen unless the economic vandals on that side decide to use more taxpayer funds for their own political purposes.
You cannot have a discussion about the protection of the environment without also admitting, contributing and acknowledging that Australia must do more to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in this country—they go hand in hand. Under the member for New England, the new Deputy Prime Minister, this government will do everything in their power to put more bills like this in the House which weaken environmental protection and more bills in the House which take Australia not forward but backwards. That's what this government wants. That's what the member for New England wants. He wants to take Australia backwards.
I'm proud to represent the seat of Macnamara. Inside Macnamara we are dedicated to protecting the environment. There are a number of local organisations and a number of local places that are dedicated to protecting the environment. In the city of Melbourne there is limited space. There are a lot of people living pretty close together so we know the value of a bit of open space in Macnamara.
There are two places in Macnamara that are especially dedicated to the environment. The first one of course is Westgate Park. Westgate Park is an incredible oasis near the city of Melbourne that is purely dedicated to local flora, local wildlife and indigenous plants. It is a wonderful place to be, and you can just feel the authenticity of that place when you walk through there. I was pleased to join the Australian Conservation Foundation, only a few months ago, to go and plant some trees. I planted the 10,000th tree this year at Westgate Park. I think it's still growing! And I really enjoyed that morning. It was a great morning on Saturday, where I was able to go and spend some time and plant some of the indigenous plants with some local volunteers. It's been obviously a very stressful time, but everyone there felt relaxed and felt really pleased to be in that place. It's a special place. If you ever do come to Melbourne, I would highly recommend anyone going for a walk through Westgate Park.
The other one of course is old Elsternwick Golf Course, which is being turned into a wetlands in Elwood. It's right on the border of my electorate and the member for Goldstein's electorate. That is going to be one of the most incredible local assets. It's one of the largest pieces of land that is being returned to the environment in the urban parts of Melbourne. It's a place that is, much like Westgate Park, going to be dedicated to indigenous plants and Australian wildlife, giving a safe haven to local birds and local animals. The friends of the Elsternwick Park as well as the Port Phillip EcoCentre and all of the volunteers do incredible work there. I want to take this opportunity to say, also to the Bayside Council who are doing the bulk of the work, that we are absolutely still committed to this project. It is really exciting. It's going to completely transform Elwood, and we are really proud of that project.
Can I take this opportunity to wish a big congratulations to the Port Phillip EcoCentre, located in the heart of St Kilda, and the Victorian Labor government. They were able to secure almost $3 million to build the redevelopment of the eco-centre. It was a commitment that we proudly made in the lead-up to the last election. Unfortunately, we weren't able to deliver that commitment, but the Victorian government with the hard work of the local member Martin Foley, who's the Minister for Health—and who is doing an outstanding job, working day and night at the moment to keep the people of Victoria safe—still found time to secure funding for this wonderful local organisation. I'm really looking forward to seeing this project come to life and seeing it be realised in the heart of St Kilda. It's really a hub for environmental education. It's going to be a hub for research. It's going to be a community hub as well, much like it is at the moment, but it's going to be state of the art. It's going to be renewable and fabulous for everyone to enjoy, and I couldn't be prouder to be a supporter, to have committed to it at the last election, to have seen my friend the Minister for Health, Martin Foley, commit to it and the Victorian government commit to it. It is going to be a wonderful local project.
I conclude my remarks by saying that, much like the last election, the next one will see a huge contrast in the respect and the commitment to protecting our environment and our biodiversity in this country. If you want to see the differences between the coalition and the Labor Party, one government wants to trash the environment, to release all control, to give it to the states, and on the other side, on this side of the House, we proudly say that we want to do our bit to protect the environment and to pass that most basic of tests: Did we leave this place better off than when we found it? Did we leave this country just a bit better off than when we found it? If we are able to say that our time in this place achieved that little goal, then that will be a goal worth achieving. But it won't happen if we keep pulling up pieces of legislation like this. What we need is strong national standards. What we need is strong protection for the environment, and it's clear you're only going to get it from this side of the House.
Mr GILES (Scullin) (17:54): It was my pleasure to be in the chamber for the contribution by my friend the member for Macnamara—in particular, for the proposition with which he ended his remarks. The question he asked is a question that everyone who has the privilege to stand in this place and in the other place should be able to answer: did we make decisions that led to a better future? Did we make decisions that left a legacy that's worth passing on to future generations? This debate really puts that question into a very stark focus, and it puts the positions of Labor and the present government into stark contrast.
The principal act that we're discussing now—the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—is an act that requires attention and amendment. I think all of us in this place would recognise that it's no longer fit for purpose—that great purpose of recognising, firstly, that there are things that are of national environmental significance. That's in part because of commitments we have made as a nation and in part because, frankly, of the inherent nature of our precious natural environment—our flora and our fauna; the habitats and biodiversity; and the things that I would hope make the land of this country so magical and important to each and every one of us. These are things that need to be centre of attention for any national government.
But here we have a national government that won't listen to the call articulated by the member for Macnamara. In its eight long years it has been unable to articulate a sense of a better future in any aspect of its performance. Most profoundly, that is so in terms of how it plans to safeguard our environment for future generations. I will touch on climate as well, because, obviously—and as you would know, Deputy Speaker Claydon—that's something which underpins this debate. But, in terms of how this government is dealing with its responsibilities—or failing to deal with its responsibilities—to protect matters national environmental significance, its performance is nothing short of woeful.
The proposal that's before us contained in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 will take us backwards, not forwards. It's a sorry record already and this would be worse. So I join with my Labor colleagues in opposing this legislation, which would weaken environmental protection in Australia. I will also make remarks in support of the second reading amendment which has been moved by the member for Griffith, the shadow minister. It really goes to the heart of this debate, a debate that government members seem unwilling to join—or perhaps they're incapable of joining it. That's really about the challenge of a national government in taking responsibility—a challenge that this government either fails to embrace or falters in its embrace, getting there only after having exhausted every other option. I hope that this government, after the other options are exhausted in this regard, will come on board.
There is actually a report which should have informed this legislation and which does provide a very good guide to what a decent and concerned national government would be doing to update this act and to put in place a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose, with enforcement and audit mechanisms which are independent and fit for purpose. This would allow us to continue down the path of securing economic growth that's sustainable and securing jobs without sacrificing the environment.
What did we see today? We saw the Prime Minister, through the screen, seeming to think that his role is somehow to play chicken with our responsibilities to the natural environment and to set tests for Labor. These are tests that, frankly, he would not set, much less pass, for himself. This is because he is a man who will not take responsibility for doing almost any aspect of his job, who continues to deflect and obfuscate when he needs to lead—nowhere more so than in this regard. The truth is that when it comes to the preservation of the national environment and, indeed, dealing with environmental approvals and investment in the job consequences that relate to those, the record of this government after eight long years is a sorry one.
And the fact is we're continuing to fall further behind on both of these indices: on the issue of protection of the environment, where we are becoming world leaders in all the wrong areas in terms of species extinction and habitat destruction; and, at the same time, we're not doing so well in terms of securing investment. Perhaps if we had a government that was interested in talking and perhaps if we had a minister who was interested in constructive engagement, we might also be sending signals to business about how things are to be done. We might be sending signals to the Australian community that we have a government that's mature enough to recognise these are issues that are inherently in the national interest. They are intergenerational questions, and surely this requires at least the pretence of engaging, firstly, with the review process that has led to this legislation and, secondly, with other parties in the parliament.
Because we are falling so much further behind, because the climate crisis deepens daily, this demands a sense of urgency, but, instead of this sense of urgency, this distance of determination, we see from this minister truculence at best, a refusal to see things as they are, much less the imagination to see things as they should be for future generations. The last few days have been terrible for our precious natural environment in Australia. We often say that a week is a long time in politics. I think all of us recognise that the past few days are making that aphorism true again for all the wrong reasons. The member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, has just become Australia's Deputy Prime Minister, and this signals still further intransigence, indeed, denial, when it comes to climate change; a position that is out of step with every state and territory—Labor states and conservative states. It's out of step with almost every significant business and organisation in Australia, and, as the Prime Minister should well know from his visit to the G7, it's a position that's out of step with all our major trading partners.
And it doesn't end with their position on emissions, because last night in the Senate we saw another signal of the resurgence of these climate deniers within Australia's government, with an attack on water policy and an attack on what seems to be an agreed framework to preserve and progress the Darling Basin. I know my friend the member for Kingston, and presumably all South Australian members, would be horrified about this—horrified about the substance; horrified about the impact on businesses, the environment and individuals in South Australia and elsewhere; and also horrified about the process—because this is a government that is seemingly incapable of following any of its own rules.
Just the night before last, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee declared the Great Barrier Reef in danger. Minister Ley seems upset about the process within UNESCO which has led to this declaration, but perhaps instead of this, instead of more truculence, she should look to her own responsibilities, like getting the Reef 2050 Plan updated, like recognising that there have been three bleaching events in the last five years and like fighting for the reef and all the communities and the jobs that depend on it and its health. Arguing about process with UNESCO could not be further from the point—nor, bizarrely, is seemingly to claim credit for decisions made by the Fraser government, as she did in question time yesterday. Is that the best Australia's environment minister can do—to hark back to the seventies and eighties?
Winning an argument around the cabinet table on the reef itself and perhaps some climate action more broadly might be more useful. With each passing day the case for action on climate gets stronger and the costs of continued inaction become more clear. While the minister argues pointlessly with UNESCO and implies political motivations on their part, she misses the point, which is not that Australia has been singled out somehow but that we can't take the reef for granted. Surely that's not hard to see, if not for its innate significance then for the many thousands of Queensland jobs that depend on it.
When what passes for debate in this Morrison-Joyce government is whether it's preferable to reach net zero by 2050 or whether it's something we should avoid like the plague, words fail me. What has preference got to do with it? We are dealing with a question that is existential. We have a prime minister who suggests one thing when he's at the G7, but here he's either incapable of insisting on, or unwilling to insist on, what needs to be done. This is the context in which this bill has been brought on for debate. This in itself is both an admission of failure and a demonstration of the strength of the ideological commitment that sustains this tired and dysfunctional government.
This bill has been part of a legislative package which includes another bill before the Senate, which itself is essentially a cut-and-paste copy of legislation introduced in 2014. Since then a lot has changed in Australia and for its natural environment, but some things just stay the same—like the rhetoric these reactionaries deploy around 'green tape', 'one-stop shops' and, more recently, 'single-touch approvals'. It is striking, though, how little progress the minister has made in respect of this agenda. Perhaps that's because this government is not interested in bringing people together, listening to experts—even the ones they commission themselves—or carefully weighing up and balancing competing considerations. Instead, they prefer this endless culture war, vice signalling, always seeking to divide or to find someone to blame or to hide behind, and never delivering in the national interest nor taking responsibility, even when the stakes are so high.
The final report of the Samuel review described our current trajectory as 'unsustainable'. The report states:
The impact of climate change on the environment will exacerbate pressures and contribute to further decline. In its current state, the environment is not sufficiently resilient to withstand these threats.
Sadly, for Australians today, for our children and for their children, nor is our current government up to facing up to these threats, and they stand condemned for that. As the member for Macnamara said, everyone in this place should be able to say they worked to leave a better future. Members voting for this bill, which will weaken environmental protections in the context of continued habitat destruction and species extinction, can't make that claim, and they should be ashamed of that.
The Samuel review—the second review of the substantive act—has been completed, but it's not being progressed. The review found that the act does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively protect environment matters that are important for the nation. How's that going right now? This is a significant finding and a damning indictment of this government's stewardship of our precious and unique natural environment, and the problem is being compounded through this bill. While Professor Samuel urged the government not to cherry-pick from amongst his 38 recommendations, that is exactly what this 'minister against the environment' has done. She has turned a cohesive, interconnected set of recommendations into a partial and partisan proposition, taking us back to 2014, when the challenge today is so much more urgent.
What's frustrating is that this needn't be such a divisive issue. Labor has sought to be constructive and to be open to dialogue, but this hasn't been reciprocated, and, of course, it can't be at any price. We on this side of the House will not ignore the national responsibility—indeed, the imperative—to safeguard our environment for future generations. The bill before us would, unfortunately, do just that. It would ignore this responsibility.
I want to touch on another matter briefly, and that is the ANAO report of last year, which showed an extraordinary record of failure when it comes to decision-making under the act. This is a problem of the minister's making, which she seeks to hide from. The delays in decision-making are because of her administrative failings. They are having shocking consequences for all parties in this, yet she won't confront that. She should, as we would. But, more fundamentally, she should withdraw this bad bill and work with us to deliver strong national environment standards and an independent, strongly resourced cop on the beat. Only by doing these three things can we all say to the people we are privileged to represent in this place that we have done what we needed to do to leave our country better, by reason of our actions, than it was before we came here. This is urgent. It can't wait. The minister should reconsider her position.
Dr HAINES (Indi) (18:09): I rise this evening to table a number of concerns I have with this bill, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021, and the manner in which this government has responded to the Samuel review into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. I am proud to represent a region endowed with diverse and beautiful geography, with mountains, rivers and fertile land. We are rich with national parks and state parks, wetlands, rivers, grasslands and abundant fields, fauna and flora—from the grass tree orchards of the Warby Ranges to the native orchids in the Chiltern-Mt Pilot National Park. The importance of the environment to my constituents is why I, as an independent MP, will scrutinise every attempt by this government to water down its protection.
It is no secret that the EPBC Act is in desperate need of reform. Professor Samuel's recommendations are balanced, following multiyear consultations with scientists, environmental experts, community leaders and business groups. Over 600 constituents have written to me, urging me to ensure that the government stays faithful to the Samuel review. As one constituent put it: 'After the Black Summer bushfires, we should be protecting what we have left and restoring what is lost. Handing environmental protection powers to states and territories without proper safeguards in place will put our most iconic wildlife on the fast track to extinction. Of Australia's 1,800 threatened species, 327 were severely impacted by the Black Summer bushfires, including the koala, the greater glider, and the Regent honeyeater.' They said, 'This is an ecological disaster.'
Professor Samuel told the government, loud and clear, that reform must establish robust environmental standards that can't be hijacked. Professor Samuel told the government it needs an independent commissioner who has the powers to audit individual decisions. Getting these laws right matters. A piecemeal approach will only expedite the extinction crisis. I am afraid this bill fails these two important benchmarks that Professor Samuel set us. Firstly, let's look at the national environmental standards. It is unclear to me why the government isn't choosing to simply adopt the robust national environmental standards that Professor Samuel developed and enshrine them in legislation, like other hallmark protections in this country—for example, the National Employment Standards. Instead, this bill is a series of roundabouts and loopholes. Under this bill, the minister is free to consult however they wish and develop an entirely new set of standards that depart entirely from the important work of Professor Samuel. These standards could be as weak as a kitten. The first sets of standards will also not be disallowable. That means parliament won't have any power to oppose those standards if we think they are not up to scratch.
Let's think about that for just a moment. Australians who don't live in the minister's electorate will have to wait four years before their MP will have any say in the new standards that the minister decides to pick up a pen and write. That doesn't sound robust to me. It sounds dangerous. And, if you think that is bad, wait until you hear about the public interest exemption. Under division 3, the minister has unfettered power to override the standards if they think there are economic and social factors that outweigh environmental ones. So what we have here is a free pass to write whatever standards the minister wants—no parliamentary oversight for four years—and a godlike power that lets the minister bulldoze environmental concerns with economic ones. I simply cannot support schedule 1 of this bill as it stands.
Schedule 2, which establishes a toothless environmental assurance commissioner, isn't much better. Professor Samuel was crystal clear in his final report: existing compliance and enforcement under the EPBC Act is weak and ineffectual. Under the current model, a shocking 93 per cent of habitat for threatened species was destroyed without any referral, assessment or approval under the act. That is outrageous. What we need is an independent cop on the beat that has the resources and powers to actually audit individual decisions and intervene when ministers and governments are abusing their power and getting away with it.
I applaud the member for Clark for the bill he introduced last month which would have established an independent Commonwealth environmental protection authority. I am also proud to second the member for Clark's second reading amendment on this bill that calls on the government to replace schedule 2 with something more respectable. Under the government's proposal in this bill, the commissioner cannot audit individual decisions, the commissioner cannot require the minister to publicly respond to serious concerns with an environmental approval, the commissioner cannot compel someone to provide it with documents and other information so it can make an informed independent decision and the commissioner cannot write its annual work plan without interference from the minister. Schedule 2 is a far cry from a cop on the beat. It's a toothless tiger with a minister permanently peering over its shoulder, ready to pull the trigger on their godlike public interest power when they don't get their way.
That's no way to treat our precious flora and fauna. As one constituent put it, 'Our unique places and wildlife in Indi are what makes it such an amazing place to live and visit.' If we don't seize this once-in-10-year opportunity to improve the act, the loss to Indi and to Australia will be irreversible and future generations might not get the chance to see some of our most iconic wildlife in the wild. I'm not prepared to support this bill as it stands and I implore the government to step up and do what the 10-year review told it to do to protect Australia's precious environment and reverse the current extinction crisis. We only get one shot at this. In 10 years time, when the next review comes around, it may be way, way too late for the flora and fauna that we love, and I'm not prepared to do that.
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (18:17): I rise to add my voice to the many on this side of the chamber and the member for Indi who have pointed out the many flaws in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 and their serious concerns about the climate and the environmental crisis that this country is facing and that this bill does not address. As the member for Indi said, we do not have time to waste. We do not have another 10 years to get this right. We are at a tipping point. We are in a climate crisis. We are in an extinction crisis. It is the job of this government to address that crisis. Unfortunately, this bill puts the environment, jobs and investment at risk, so I cannot support it and I know people on this side of the chamber cannot support it. We need much better regulation than this bill gives us. Debate on this bill comes in a week when we've really seen the government nail its colours to the mast on where it stands on the environment and where it stands on climate. This week we've had UNESCO, an international body, come out and tell us how at-risk the Great Barrier Reef is. The iconic Great Barrier Reef, loved by so many Australians, known by so many Australians, the source of jobs, tourism and income, is at serious risk. This government's response to that is to quibble, to fight, not to fix. Its response is not to think, 'We're failing in our responsibility, we've got a responsibility to fix the Reef now, to preserve it for the people who rely on it now and also for future generations.' No, no, their responses is to quibble.
In the other place we see members from the other side attempting to overthrow the work that's being done to preserve the Murray-Darling Basin, again, an iconic part of Australia's natural landscape and an iconic part of what helps to make sure our country is productive. It's an important part of our agricultural system, but those on the other side play politics with it. As part of some kind of revamped Nationals leadership bid that I can't explain, they decide to play politics with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It is unacceptable that that is what this government is doing with our environment. We are past the point of playing politics with our environment.
This bill falls well short of the Samuel review final report. That review was the most significant opportunity for reform of the past 20 years, and this government has squandered it. We had favourable conditions for reform. The opposition was prepared to be constructive. We want this to work. The review had a well-respected chair in place who has worked with leaders from agriculture, from resources and from business, as well as with traditional owners, conservationists and academics. But what we've got in front of us does not live up to that review. It does not give us an independent cop on the beat. It does not set the standards we know we need to preserve our environment, to make sure we're tackling the climate crisis. In fact, it's an absolute mess. Our environment needs protection. Businesses need certainty. Australians need jobs. They don't need this rehashed mess from the Morrison government. This bill fails on all counts.
We know that Australia has a jobs crisis and it has an environmental crisis. In fact, the cuts that the Morrison government have made in this area have exacerbated some of these crises. We know that they've cut 40 per cent of the funding to the environment department, which, predictably, led to job and investment delays, mismanagement and environmental decline. We know they've overseen massive delays to jobs and investment, which have exploded by more than 510 per cent under their watch. They've overseen 79 per cent of decisions which have been affected by error or been noncompliant—79 per cent! What a waste of time and money on tens of billions of dollars worth of projects! And, of course, they have overseen unprecedented decline in our beautiful and precious natural environment.
The government are also out of step—at loggerheads, really—with the rest of the world on climate change. We saw this in the last few weeks, when the Prime Minister went to the G7 Summit and fudged a little bit on net zero by 50 per cent. The UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was pretty sure that we were there because our Prime Minister has been 'pretty sure, preferably, maybe' we'll get to net zero by 2050. Now we find out that 'pretty sure, preferably, maybe' we won't get to net zero by 2050, because apparently the people who rule the policy in this area are in fact the National Party. The National Party were not happy this week, and we saw that they were not happy this week. They were so unhappy they had to dump the former Deputy Prime Minister and install a new Deputy Prime Minister. So this 'pretty sure, preferably, maybe' we'll get to net zero sometime by 2050—'preferably, maybe, whenever'—is not a thing. It is not a thing, because the Prime Minister cannot convince his own party room. He has a party room full of climate deniers.
As I said before, we are running out of time. There is not the time for this government to spend another 10 years ignoring the climate crisis. Not only does that do away with all our futures, in terms of addressing the effects of global warming; it does away with the jobs and the investment that this country should be reaping the benefits of. Internationally, they are there. That's what happened at the G7. That's where the agreements of the future are going to be. That's where the jobs of the future are going to be. And this country will be locked out of them, because this government prefers to play politics and is so stubborn, is so stuck on the will of the Nationals, that it can't get there.
Australia is facing an extinction crisis, and this was further compounded by the terrible bushfires that we saw in 2019-20. At that time, more than one billion animals perished; 12 million hectares of land burned; and lives, homes and livelihoods were lost. But, once again, the Morrison government was slow on the bushfire recovery, and it failed to protect our iconic species. During the bushfire crisis, we saw 10 million hectares burn—almost the equivalent landmass of the United Kingdom. Cities and towns across the eastern seaboard were shrouded in thick smoke, and there were hazardous conditions for many people. There is no doubt that climate change and ongoing drought have created drier conditions across our country. For the first time in that crisis, we saw rainforest and areas of bushland burn that had no prior history of fires. We lost countless native animals, and natural habitats were decimated. This has had and will have a lasting impact on our wildlife populations, and we have many threatened species at risk of extinction. This is a critical turning point in our history. We must conserve our native species, both flora and fauna, to ensure that these ecosystems remain for future generations. We need stronger environmental protection in place to ensure this happens. We need an independent cop on the beat. We need genuine national regulations—not what is contained in this bill, because it just won't cut it.
On this side of the House, we get it. Every major achievement in environmental protection in this nation's history has been delivered by a Labor government. Labor's legacy is that we protected Antarctica; we protected the Daintree, Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef; we protected the Great Barrier Reef—we don't give it away; we don't quibble over it—we protected the Franklin; we created Landcare; and we created what was at the time the largest network of marine parks in the world. Labor has the will and the capacity to protect Australia's environment. But those on the other side do not share that commitment. They do not share that record of achievement. In fact, their record of achievement is nothing short of woeful and disgraceful.
This is something that the constituents in my electorate of Jagajaga could not be clearer about with me. I have had hundreds of people contact me and my office to tell me that they are incredibly worried about the future, that they want real action on climate change and that they do not support the weak non-protection bill that this government has put forward. They have asked me time and time again to speak up in this place for better, to speak up for the environmental protection that this country needs and deserves. So I am here today doing just that—telling this government that it must do better.
My constituents rely on the evidence of scientists, and the correspondence I've received from them and the conversations I've had express their deep frustration that we are stuck in a politically ideological war because this government will not recognise the science and will not do its job but, instead, continues to try to play politics. This is too important to be a political game. The science is real. Climate change is real. Our environment needs protection, and now is the time for this government to show strong leadership. Now is the time for a genuine protection act that genuinely protects our environment. Now is the time for a commitment to net zero—a genuine commitment to net zero, not probably, preferably, maybe, sometime. Now is the time for that commitment. We do not have time to waste.
I very much fear that the people on the other side and the Prime Minister are trying to use the cover of the COVID-19 crisis and the ongoing crisis that this country is facing to, in fact, do away with environmental regulation and to make sure that, going forward, we do not have the regulation in place that this country needs. The government's track record is terrible. It has cut jobs, and that means that the environment department hasn't been able to do its job. We've had delays. We've had decisions that have had to be reviewed. And then the government ignored its own review into this act. This government has ignored the work of Graeme Samuel, this respected reviewer, and instead of putting forward reforms that were based on that, instead of putting forward reforms that give us an independent cop on the beat and genuine national standards, it has put forward this weak suggestion.
It can't be supported. They have ignored and cherrypicked the recommendations of the Samuel review. They've ruled out a genuinely independent commissioner for our environment. We know from scientists that this act fails to take adequate account of the biggest threats that we all face: climate change and environmental degradation. It does mean our important and iconic sites and species are at risk. The Great Barrier Reef is at risk. Australians want this government to act to protect our reef. They do not want quibbling. They do not want politics. They want our iconic sites, the sites that we all love and treasure, to be protected.
We know that this government has an issue with listening to and comprehending science. I say to them: get over it. It is time for you to act and listen to the experts. It is time for you to get on with it and listen to the experts when it comes to dealing with climate change and the environmental protections that we all need. Otherwise, you are continuing to put the places that we all love at risk—not just big, iconic sites like the Great Barrier Reef but sites in my own electorate. We are very lucky in my electorate that we have the Yarra River flowing through. We have a number of natural parks and bushland. For an urban environment we are very privileged. We have a number of iconic species that live in our electorate as well. I know how much my constituents value having that natural environment. They know how much it is at risk. They know that these species that we get to enjoy, that are part of our local landscape, will not survive unless we start to do things differently, unless we do have the regulations in place, unless we have the independent cop on the beat that makes sure that development and changes all happen in a way that support our environment. That's not what this bill gives us. It is what this country needs. It is what my constituents need.
I want to assure all the people in my community who have contacted me, and who continue to contact me, about their concerns about this bill that I hear you and I will continue to speak up in this place about your concerns, about the need for the Morrison government to do so much better when it comes to addressing climate change and when it comes to protecting the natural environment that we all love. I know that I am joined by so many Labor colleagues on this side who understand that this is a crisis. It is a climate crisis. It is an environmental crisis. We must act now. We need a government that gets it. The Morrison government must act.
Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (18:31): I rise to speak on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. This bill and the bill that was debated, I think, last year in this place, both seek to amend the EPBC Act and to implement the recommendations of the so-called Samuel review. The EPBC Act is now 21 years old. It was a creature of the Howard government and a welcome reinforcement of the Commonwealth's role in environmental policy in this country. It was a Labor government, I think, in 2008 that decided to put in place a statutory 10-year review of the act. The first one was done immediately under Dr Allan Hawke. Ten years on there was one done under Graeme Samuel, the former chair of the ACCC and a pretty highly regarded Australian.
There is no doubt, and I have heard many say it throughout the course of this debate, that our environmental challenges are very, very significant—there can be no doubt about that and I don't think anyone in this building is arguing otherwise—but so too are our economic challenges. We need to get the balance right. As the Samuel review noted, 'Our natural environment is in a state of decline and is coming under increasing threats from human and other behaviour.' But it is also true that investors are being held back by a complex and cumbersome regulatory regime. I say 'regimes', plural, very deliberately, because projects which trigger Commonwealth scrutiny face two very long processes. Firstly, at the state level. It can take years. Then, of course, at the Commonwealth level, where, again, the process can take years.
Given the impacts of COVID-19, as we, hopefully, work our way out of it—we're all fearing tonight that we might be going back into it—we are all acutely aware that it is now more important than ever to stimulate investment and nation building in this country.
Graeme Samuel made it clear that the EPBC Act, in its current form, is delivering neither for the environment nor for the economy and those who operate in our economy. He also concluded that it's not working or delivering for our traditional owners. That is something we must fix, and we must fix it collectively. We must find a greater level of bipartisanship on this issue if we're going to do this right and if we're going to do it in a timely way.
Twenty-one years ago, the Commonwealth decided to exercise its constitutional power to engage itself more heavily in the regulation of economic investment and its impact on our natural environment, and that was a very good thing. Since 2019, the centrepiece of national environmental law, replacing a number of Whitlam-era acts, has been the EPBC Act. I think it has served us pretty well, but it's certainly not serving us well enough in the 21st century. As required by law, we are reviewing it every 10 years. Everything we discuss tonight and in relation to the earlier bill—and there will be more bills—relates to the 38 recommendations that Graeme Samuel made.
Professor Samuel also warned that the act is not delivering for our traditional owners. This is something that has been missing somewhat, I think, in this debate. I haven't heard every contribution, but I think we need to have a broader discussion about it. I can see the solutions in this bill for regulatory burden, but I haven't yet been able to clearly identify what changes there are for our traditional owners. Is that further involvement of the traditional owners happening within the bilaterals? It certainly doesn't appear to be in the interim standards. How do we intend to ensure that our traditional owners are more engaged and have a greater say in the future of their lands?
The review offered thoughtful criticisms, I thought, of the complexity of the EPBC, its failure to protect our natural environment, the brake it's putting on jobs growth and, of course, its vulnerability to vexatious legislation, which is one of the things that will be dealt with in this review, if fully and properly implemented. Graeme Samuel also noted that the EPBC is trusted neither by business nor by the environmental groups. That in itself indicates to me that we have a problem that needs to be fixed. So particular attention has been given to that two-step system that I spoke about, and, of course, that's the focus of the debate we're having tonight: how we get to that one-touch system so that proponents go through only one regulatory system rather than two, but through a system in which the Commonwealth still dictates the terms.
The review found that Commonwealth environmental approvals for big resource projects take an average of three years, and that's after the years already invested through the state regulatory process. Indeed, the Minerals Council of Australia has estimated that a delay on greenfields projects can cost up to $47 million every month—not every year but every month. The Productivity Commission has also sounded the alarm, suggesting that the total cost of a one-year delay of a big project is between 17 and 18 per cent of its net present value. You don't have to be a mathematician to work out that, on a project worth $2 billion, that's a very significant amount of money. Graeme Samuel recommended that the current system's job-destroying duplication should be addressed by improving, strengthening and streamlining the capacity of the federal government to delegate Commonwealth approval functions to state governments under bilateral agreements, but only where state processes are of acceptable quality and projects will be assessed against new, stringent and enforceable national environmental standards. I think that's a very good point. I think people are rightly concerned that state regimes might not have the resources or the capacity to properly deal with some of these bigger projects. But that will be dealt with before the process. The Commonwealth will ensure that the state has the capacity, and, of course, the states, not unsurprisingly, will be asking the Commonwealth for some money to bolster their resources and their capacity. That should be the case and I have no doubt that will be the case.
A year on from the release of the interim report, it's time to get on with the reforms needed both to better protect our iconic natural assets and to deliver a much-needed boost for our economy. The impacts of COVID-19 demand a new urgency and should generate strong and timely multi-party parliamentary support for the legislation needed to introduce the interim national environmental standards that reflect the existing requirements of the act so that legal effect can be given to them, and strengthen and make more robust the bilateral framework that has existed since the creation of the EPBC Act.
I've heard some people say that the interim standards are somewhat less than the standards that existed under the Abbott government. That would set alarm bells off for me as well, I must say. But the fact is that there were no standards under the regime of the Abbott government. These are the interim standards ahead of the introduction of the final standards. These standards are new and are an important and necessary part of the process of delegating the Commonwealth powers to the states.
We must remember that this concept of interim standards went to the national cabinet and that the national cabinet agreed unanimously that interim standards which reflect the current law should be in place so that we can get on with the job and provide protections that are no less or more than the current protections that someone would expect under the settings of the current act. I think that with the unanimous support of the national cabinet we should give very serious consideration to that. We cannot wait for the appropriate amount of time that would be necessary to put in place the final standards before taking the regulatory burden from some of these projects.
I have listened to many of the contributions and very few people have really talked directly about the act that is before us in the parliament tonight and today. I suspect that, when this bill goes to the Senate, it will be dealt cognately with the earlier bill—the streamlining environmental approvals bill. I think that would be appropriate. The key points that we need to focus on here are what emerges out of these two bills, not all the other general range of propositions that come out of the Samuel review per se. These are the things that we need to be focusing on and, on that basis, I think it's time for the parties generally to make a commitment to getting on with the job while at the same time, of course, expecting no less than the highest of standards that we can boast about and be very proud of when talking to our international partners in international fora.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (18:43): The government's arguments in favour of this Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021 are the height of hypocrisy—the absolute height of hypocrisy! We would all remember that it wasn't long ago that the government brought legislation to this parliament which we supported and which was about making sure that the federal government—the federal parliament—had control over international relations. It was about making sure that states were not given primacy in terms of the agreements that our government of Australia makes with the rest of the world. What is in front of us now is for every single environmental treaty, without exception, to be deferred to the states—every single one of them! There is nothing in the EPBC Act that doesn't have its source in an international convention. This goes all the way back to Whitlam, where the external affairs power was used to make sure that the federal parliament could have a say on environmental matters. Why? Because the state of our continent and the state of our oceans are of concern to all Australians.
Why did that become a big issue back then? Because those parties opposite us wanted to drill in the Great Barrier Reef. That's where this started. And today the government wants to say, 'Oh, well, in the name of getting decisions made quickly, let's hand all these powers to the states.' The World Heritage Convention is a federal power. The Ramsar convention is a federal power. Everything that comes under the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the IUCN, is a federal power. Everything that comes under the Bond convention is a federal power.
Why did we, back in 2012, introduce a water trigger? We introduced a water trigger because underground water goes across state boundaries and is of concern to all Australians and, therefore, this parliament. The parliament decided to establish a water trigger because it felt it couldn't trust the states to deal with it in a way that involved national responsibility. What does this government now want to do? It wants to take the water trigger power and give it to the states. So a federal power that was established because the states couldn't be trusted is now going to be deferred back to the states. If you have ever wanted to know how international conventions and foreign affairs powers matter to the national government, look at the conversations that have happened over the last 48 hours about the Great Barrier Reef. If you want to argue, 'Those issues are for the states,' look at the level of national concern there is, including an answer in question time today from the environment minister for Australia, about the Great Barrier Reef, and you'll see exactly why these issues should have national responsibility.
The parliament is being asked to hand powers that only exist because of treaties over to the states. Everything the government said only a few months ago about 'Oh, well, foreign affairs is entirely the preserve of the Commonwealth, and foreign affairs needs to be run through the Commonwealth parliament' is abandoned the moment they talk about environmental protection. All of it disappears in an instant. They say, 'Oh, but Labor state premiers want to have the power.' Of course they do! Every state premier always wants to have full power over these issues. Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen wanted to have full power to mine the Great Barrier Reef. It was the Tasmanian state government that wanted to dam the Franklin. It was the Northern Territory government that didn't want Kakadu protected and wanted to mine Coronation Hill. Every major environmental protection that we talk about as being iconic in this land is something that occurred when the states didn't want it and the Commonwealth did.
On the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, which the National Party have tried to derail in the Senate today: does anyone think that, if we had just asked the states to handle that, it ever would have happened? We tried that for roughly 100 years. It didn't go too well. And now the government are saying, 'Let's just hand it over to the states.' What's their argument? 'It'd be quicker.' It is true that the pace of environmental approvals has slowed down, but the reason it has slowed down is that they've gutted the Public Service. The fastest level of approvals, in terms of value of production being unlocked, happened in the last term of the last Labor government. We had Wheatstone. We had the gas projects across Queensland and offshore from the Northern Territory. We had the Prelude project. We had the Olympic Dam expansion. The approval was given, by me.
An honourable member interjecting—
Mr BURKE: It was a decision for BHP! All these approvals were unlocked. It can be done if you properly fund the Public Service and if you have environment ministers who do their job. Instead, we have a government that guts the Public Service and says—surprise, surprise!—'The department's taking a long time to do its work.' Of course it is! It takes people to be employed to do the job to get approvals sorted through. Sometimes, when we hear the government talk about delays, those delays are where the department have in fact told the company, 'This is what we need,' and they're waiting for the information to come back. That is not the fault of whether it's dealt with at a federal or state level; that's simply waiting for the company to provide the information.
But if this government wants to say, 'Well, you just hand it to the states and it will be quicker,' my fear is that maybe it will be a hell of a lot quicker because a whole lot of standards just disappear. I would hate to think where we would have landed, if we hadn't introduced the water trigger, in terms of the treatment of underground water when you had major coalmines and major coal seam gas projects. I shudder to think what the states, left to their own devices, would have done on those projects, because the only reason there was an independent scientific committee was because it was in federal legislation. It wasn't something the states had ever established; it was something that was put there because this parliament made a decision that, if it is an international treaty that we have signed up to, it should be of national importance and this should be the place of government that deals with it.
This rush of just wanting to make environmental protection someone else's problem is something that, if they get this through, the government will regret. It will mean that, if you get an arcing up on an issue at an international level—like what's happened over the last couple of days with respect to potentially where the World Heritage Committee might land with the Great Barrier Reef—you can't really go there and say, 'Oh, look, we want you to say this is okay, but it wasn't really our responsibility; we'd already flick-passed it to another tier of government.' That's not going to help you. That's not going to help Australia. It doesn't help us to be the only country in the world that defers its treaty responsibilities to states and the signatory to the treaty just flick-passes it and takes no responsibility. But I guess it's no surprise that the government want this, because they have been willing to create the crisis by gutting the public service and going slow on approvals. They've done that. That's been eyes wide open from those opposite. But then the next thing they do is say: 'What a surprise. It's all taking too long; we'd better had it to the states.'
Every major environmental decision—every one of them—has come because of campaigns or governmental decisions from Labor. That is simply the history of it. When the Liberal government and Malcolm Fraser took credit for being responsible for the time when the Great Barrier Reef was put on the World Heritage List, they sort of omitted the fact that, until Gough Whitlam signed up to the World Heritage Convention, we couldn't put anything on the list. They sort of omitted that fact. There was a Labor campaign for it to go on the list. What was the Labor campaign about? It was about the fact that the other side of politics wanted to oil drilling in the Great Barrier Reef. So don't be too proud. Don't be too proud of something that you were shamed into. That's how the Great Barrier Reef ended up on the World Heritage List.
The two largest conservation decisions in the history of the planet both belong to Australia and to decisions of Labor governments. The largest conservation decision in the history of the planet was when Bob Hawke and Michel Rocard got together and turned around every other country in the Antarctic Treaty and made sure that the Antarctic would be a sanctuary for the environment and science. There was somebody on the other side of politics who said, 'That would be a great place for mining.' That person was made Deputy Prime Minister of Australia this week. Different members of parliament at different times have been sent there. There's some trip on the big orange ship, on the icebreaker, where they go down to Antarctica and they keep a diary and they take notes. No-one else has come back and said, 'Oh, that would be a great place to mine.' One member of this place has done it, and he just got elevated to the second-most important job that this place has to offer.
The second-largest conservation decision that's been made in the history of the planet was the marine parks. The response from this government was to cut them in half to make sure there was no longer a connection between the Coral Sea and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. They cut it in half. That's what they own. They resisted the protection of Kakadu. They resisted the protection of the Daintree. They resisted the Tasmanian dam's decision. They resisted the peace agreement and in fact came to office tearing up the forestry peace agreement. And we've seen the outcome of that now—that industry having missed out on the support it was meant to get from the peace agreement with markets. But, in terms of conservation, all the areas that weren't going to get logged didn't get logged anyway, so the only losers in tearing up that agreement were industry and exports. They were the only losers! That was the achievement! And why do they do it? Because they were hellbent on wanting to make sure that they could argue they were against any of this environmental rubbish.
Can I tell you that there are few things more conservative than saying, 'We probably shouldn't wreck the planet.' It's a relatively conservative sort of position to start with, but what's meant to be the conservative side of politics has always been troubled by it. And, as a result, we get to the situation that we're in today, where you have the 10-year review of the act and they decide to not implement it, because we cannot pretend that what's in front of us now is an implementation of the Samuel review. It is not. We can't take seriously what this government has said about foreign affairs, because, for all their claims that foreign affairs should be the preserve of this parliament, we have legislation now to hand over the responsibility for every treaty back to the states if it's about the environment.
Finally, the madness, which was the most recent addition to this act, was the water trigger—and the other side of politics voted for this—where we specifically said that it could not be deferred to the states. Why did the parliament do that? Because we had seen what the states were doing with respect to callous disregard for underground water. The Great Artesian Basin—there are a few conductivity points across state borders. The water doesn't actually freeze the moment you get to the Queensland, Victorian and South Australian border! But, having gone through the process of seeing how poorly the states handle this, having seen the need for federal oversight, they've decided we'll have the power but we'll let the states make the decision over it! What's in front of us is hypocritical for the arguments that the government has otherwise offered. But can I say that it's madness, in terms of implementing any of our obligations. What this will deliver is vandalism, because it will take away protections that have been put in place in every instance because Australia was concerned that state governments weren't actually reaching these standards. That was one of the reasons that we made sure we signed up to a whole series of these treaties—because there was a view that the federal oversight needed to occur. The parliament now is considering abandoning that, and I'm very pleased to stand against the madness of that idea.
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (18:58): I firstly want to thank all members for their contribution to the debate on this important Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021. The independent review of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 found that the act is complex, a comprehensive reworking of the act is required and reform should be delivered in stages. And, as I've already said in this place, the government is committed to taking a staged, methodical approach to working through the recommendations of the review in consultation with stakeholders.
Already I have released a pathway for reforming Australia's national environmental law, which sets out the government's initial stages of reforms. These initial stages include and build on the reforms that are already underway, including the legislation debated today. I also released a time line outlining the government's proposed timing for further environmental law reform.
I want to address some of the matters that have been raised during the debate. Firstly, we've continually heard members compare this bill with that of a previous bill. There's been a lot of confusion about the narrative that relates to the reforms. Actually, the member for Hunter put it well when he said—and I'm paraphrasing him—he's heard a lot confusing words spoken about something that isn't the bill before the House. I couldn't have put it better myself. This bill delivers a framework to establish environmental national standards and an environmental assurance commissioner, a commissioner that will provide oversight and confidence that the single-touch approval system is working as intended and upholding the requirements of the EPBC Act. This shows once again that, despite the government adopting a new approach to environmental reform, those opposite continue to stand in the way. We've heard from the shadow minister claiming that her door is open to reform, a quietly echoed appeal from every speaker in Labor at the end of their remarks—'The door is open.' But what Labor says and what it does are two different things, because if Labor was serious about reforming the EPBC Act it would be supporting these reforms. If Labor was serious about supporting jobs and driving economic growth, it would be supporting this bill. If Labor was serious about delivering better environmental outcomes, it would work with the government. But, once again, all Labor does is stand in the way.
Time and time again, Labor has moved the goalposts when it comes to working with the government. The member for Watson, previously an environment minister, started to wander into a very interesting space but seemed very clearly to say that Labor does not want to see a devolution of accreditation under standards and assurances to the states. It doesn't want that. But that's not what his leader said in a letter to the Prime Minister. It is very clear from the opposition leader's letter that 'much needed reforms to Australia's environmental laws are needed' and that 'federal Labor supports the Western Australian resources sector, the jobs it creates and the export revenue it generates,' and then he goes through projects. And I think that is quite fine, because we do know that the Western Australian government wants this and is very strong. The Leader of the Opposition wrote, 'Federal Labor has never ruled out support for bilateral agreements with states with the aim of streamlining the approvals processes consistent with the Samuel review,' which we commissioned. So either Labor supports a devolved accredited bilateral agreement system with the states or it doesn't, but, again, it's not clear from the speakers which way.
When it comes to the crunch, the behaviour that Labor have demonstrated indicates that they were never really serious about improving the EPBC Act. As I said earlier this week, the Prime Minister wrote to the opposition in the spirit of working together to bring about important reforms—important, as noted by the Leader of the Opposition—that will deliver much needed jobs for the country and grow the economy while putting in place the measures that will provide better environmental outcomes. But what did Labor do? They said no. Despite continued efforts by me and the government to find a pathway forward, to work together with stakeholders, to bring about change—and all that has been constructive—it hasn't involved the Labor Party, because all Labor has managed to say is no.
Just this evening, the Prime Minister received a response, and I've already quoted from that response. The Leader of the Opposition claims to understand the need to support Western Australia's thriving resources sector. Well, if the opposition leader really understood that sector and the jobs it creates, if the opposition leader really was standing with the people of Western Australia, as he seems to be saying, he would stop saying no. He would stop standing in the way of this bill and these necessary reforms.
While Labor were also quick to criticise the government, claiming the government was under-resourcing the department and delaying project approvals, suggesting that the government was stalling projects, what they didn't mention was that this year's federal budget took total new Morrison government spending on the environment since the last election to more than $2 billion. We've also been investing in our department's resources and capabilities. So, while Labor was happy to rely on an Australian National Audit Office report from a previous period to criticise the government, what it failed to mention was that the department is currently assessing projects on time. Currently, key assessment time frames are met 99 per cent of the time, and this is a result of the government's investment to bust congestion and improve service delivery, and we have.
The shadow minister also indicated Labor was committed to a framework for durable reforms that will last for years to come, but this is exactly what this bill does: it sets up that framework, an architecture to facilitate improvements to the EPBC Act. It provides a pathway for greater environmental protections and for more jobs across Australia, jobs that would be created in electorates from the Hunter to the Pilbara, from Tasmania to Queensland. I understand the opposition leader may be planning to head to Western Australia. He will be off to the Pilbara to reassure miners and industry that Labor is in it for them. But if they really were in it for them and for the environment, they would be supporting legislative change now.
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms LEY: There are some interjections about the border, but I don't know the exact dates. I only know there's been a lot of speculation and a lot of—
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms LEY: Excuse me—I'll take the interjection, since no-one seems to understand what I'm actually saying, Deputy Speaker Irons. I know you do, as a member from the great state of Western Australia. I don't know when the Leader of the Opposition is heading to the Pilbara, but he's been spruiking that visit in the press for a long time: 'Here I come, and I love you, resources sector.' When he gets there he might hear a different message. We know that there are others on the other side who want these reforms and they remain sidelined. These are the pragmatic members of the Labor Party, and we know who they are. They understand that these reforms represent the first step not only to providing jobs and growing the economy but to delivering better environmental outcomes.
Labor also criticised the bill for the provisions that establish the Environmental Assurance Commissioner. This is a new position that is directly lifted from the Samuel report, and what Professor Samuel recommended was a new independent statutory position of the Environmental Assurance Commissioner to provide strong and independent oversight. This bill delivers on this recommendation. The fact is that if the parliament doesn't support these bills opportunities to put in place single-touch approvals this year and the new Environmental Assurance Commissioner will be lost. As the Business Council of Australia said:
We have a genuine opportunity to improve the efficiency of decision-making while addressing the deteriorating state of Australia's environmental assets.
I will be moving a number of amendments to the bill to address the recommendations of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. I do that in good faith because throughout the process and consistent with my engagement with, consultation with and approach to all of the parties interested in this bill, I have listened, and the government will move amendments that reflect that important committee's recommendations. This bill, together with the streamlining bill, represents a starting point. This parliament must allow the journey to commence. The standards and assurance bill represents a sensible and pragmatic approach to provide transparency in decision-making and confidence in assurance and oversight.
I mentioned that I have listened to much of the debate, and so much of it is not on what this bill is actually about. So much of it shows a misunderstanding of what our EPBC reform is about. I don't know if that's deliberate or if people haven't interrogated our reforms correctly, but I want to make one really clear point.
Honourable members interjecting—
Ms LEY: All the Labor Party is doing is interjecting. I'd love to answer these questions on the floor of the House in question time, so please hold that thought. But it is really important to note that we are not handing over powers to the states, so that they can pick them up and do what they like with them. We are lifting all states to one strong national standard, so that if a state does not meet that standard it does not receive accreditation, it does not receive my signature for a bilateral agreement. There is no drop-dead date for states to come on board. There is no talk of the Commonwealth walking away. There are call-in powers for the minister. There are supervision powers. The member for Watson was talking about treaties. He must've deliberately misunderstood. There are call-in powers for the minister and there are strong national standards that will be met, or no bilateral agreements will be entered into. So we are lifting the standard of the states across Australia through that strong Commonwealth oversight. We'll do that via something that hasn't been proposed before, and that is the Environmental Assurance Commissioner.
I know that the government is really committed to this reform. I know that the Treasurer wants this bill to pass for jobs and COVID recovery. I know that the industry minister wants this bill to pass for industry. I know the health minister wants this bill to pass because the health minister understands the need for jobs as we're coming out of COVID. And I know the resources minister wants this bill to pass for the resources sector. But I want this bill to pass for the environment. I want this bill to pass because I know that this is the first stage of genuine reform to protect our unique and precious landscape and places.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Irons): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time, to which the honourable member for Griffith moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The honourable member for Clark 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 Clark be disagreed to.
The House divided. [19:14]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Irons)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) (19:21): The question is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Griffith be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
The SPEAKER: The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
The House divided. [19:25]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (19:28): by leave—I move amendments (1) to (8) as circulated in my name together.
(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 6), omit "may", substitute "must".
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 13), omit "may", substitute "must".
(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 16), after subsection 65C(1), insert:
(1A) Without limiting subsection (1), the standards made under that subsection must include national standards for each of the following:
(a) matters of national environmental significance;
(b) transparent processes and robust decisions, including:
(i) judicial review; and
(ii) community consultation; and
(iii) adequate assessment of impacts on matters of national environmental significance, including climate impacts; and
(iv) emissions profile disclosure; and
(v) regional planning;
(c) Indigenous engagement and involvement in environmental decision making;
(d) compliance and enforcement;
(e) data and information;
(f) environmental monitoring and evaluation of outcomes;
(g) environmental restoration, including offsets;
(h) wildlife permits and trade.
(1B) The Minister must take all reasonable steps to ensure that national environmental standards are in force, and comply with subsection (1A), at all times.
(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 12 and 13), omit ", being a decision or thing that is determined in an instrument under subsection (4),".
(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (line 27) to page 9 (line 7), omit subsections 65H(4) to (6).
(6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (lines 15 to 26), omit subsections 65H(2) and (3), substitute:
(2) In considering whether the decision or thing is not inconsistent with a national environmental standard, the person must:
(a) apply the standard directly to the particular decision or thing; and
(b) be able to demonstrate that the person has applied the standard in that way.
(7) Schedule 1, item 6, page 9 (lines 8 to 22), omit subsections 65H(7) to (9), substitute:
Exception — national interest
(7) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine that subsection (1) does not apply to the making of a decision, or the doing of a thing, if he or she is satisfied that exempting the decision or thing from subsection (1) is necessary in the interests of:
(a) Australia's defence or national security; or
(b) preventing or dealing with (including mitigating the effects of) a national emergency.
(8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 10 (line 21), omit "and subsection 65H(5)".
Debate interrupted; adjournment proposed and negatived.
Ms STEGGALL: These amendments will ensure that measures to safeguard the environment are in place in relation to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Standards and Assurance) Bill 2021.
Items (1), (2) and (3) relate to the National Environmental Standards. Items (1) and (2) place a positive duty on the minister to make National Environmental Standards. This will ensure that the national standards are always in place. Item (3) ensures that national standards are always in place for several important areas. These were the areas highlighted by the Samuel review as being essential. The review recommended that the full suite of National Environmental Standards should be immediately developed and implemented to provide clear rules and improve decision-making and that all the standards are necessary to improve decision-making by the Commonwealth and to provide confidence in agreements with accredited parties. I should remind all members of the House that protection of our environment is an absolutely essential duty that we have in this place. The Samuel review, which was conducted extensively with huge involvement and engagement of the community, made some very serious recommendations about how the legislation is currently failing to protect our environment, and these changes are needed.
Items (4), (5) and (8) will remove the determination-making provisions of section 65H, consistent with the Law Council of Australia's submission to the Senate inquiry into the bill. The Law Council has warned that the determination in question gives the minister discretion to exclude a large number of decisions or things under the EPBC Act from the requirement to not be inconsistent with the standards. Essentially, there is uncertainty regarding the potential for certain processes and decisions to be excluded from the application of standards under this power. The Law Council went on to recommend the deletion of some of the wording of 65H(1) as well as 65H(4) in its entirety. These items enact those recommendations, and I urge the government and the minister to take on board these amendments because they were submitted by the Law Council to ensure that this is actually good law to protect our environment.
Item (6) is consistent with the recommendations of the Law Council of Australia to rework 65H, and item (5) substitutes a provision which allowed for other factors to be considered when judging whether a national environmental standard has been complied with. The former list of factors was broad and afforded too much discretion to decision-makers. The effect would have been to significantly weaken enforcement of, and compliance with, the standards. This item will ensure the standards are applied directly and demonstrably.
Regarding item (7), the amendment bill provided a public interest exception for the application of the standards. This exception was way too broad and does not provide discrete circumstances where it's permissible. In effect, it will weaken compliance with the standards if it remains as currently proposed. Item (7) substitutes a new national interest exception and allows exceptions to the application of the National Environmental Standards only in circumstances where Australia's defence and national security is at risk or when preventing, or dealing with, a national emergency.
These amendments will ensure that the environment is being protected. They will ensure that the proper governance arrangements are in place, including the ESD Committee. These amendments will tighten provisions to ensure that the National Environmental Standards are in place and applied directly, with exceptions made only for national security or emergency situations.
I should say that, notwithstanding these amendments, schedule 2, which relates to the Commonwealth Environment Assurance Commissioner, also has a lot of problems with it. In fact, it really should be reworked. It is unworkable to try to amend. The Commonwealth Environmental Protection Agency should replace it, as has been proposed by the member for Clark. It would assume the functions and better reflect Graeme Samuel's recommendations.
I should say that many in this place go back to their electorate and their community proclaiming to want to protect the environment and to care about the outcome of the Samuel's review, but little is done in this place to actually give effect to those words. (Time expired)
The SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.
The House divided. [19:40]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (19:43): I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (5) together.
Leave granted.
Ms LEY: I move government amendments (1) to (5) on sheet TK296:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "Schedule 2", substitute "Schedules 2 and 3".
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 24), after subsection 65C(3), insert:
Sunsetting of first standards
(3A) Despite Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the Legislation Act 2003, each of the first standards made under this section in relation to a particular matter is repealed at the end of the earlier of the following days (unless revoked earlier):
(a) the day after the end of the period of 30 months beginning on the day that the standard commences;
(b) the day after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on the day that the report of the first review of the standard as mentioned in section 65G is published on the Department's website.
(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (line 27), omit "undertaken", substitute "completed".
(4) Schedule 1, item 6, page 7 (lines 29 and 30), omit subsection 65G(3), substitute:
(3) Each later review must be completed before the end of 5 years after the previous review was completed.
(5) Page 23 (after line 28), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3 — Declared States and Territories
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
1 Paragraph 505D(1)(b)
Omit "declared State or Territory", substitute "State or self governing Territory".
2 Paragraph 505D(1)(b)
Omit "relevant State or Territory", substitute "State or self governing Territory".
3 Paragraph 505D(2)(b)
Omit "declared State or Territory", substitute "State or self governing Territory".
4 Paragraph 505D(2)(b)
Omit "Minister of the State or Territory", substitute "Minister of the State or self governing Territory".
5 Section 505E
Repeal the section.
6 Section 528 (definition of declared State or Territory )
Repeal the definition.
If I may speak briefly to these amendments, Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Yes, you've got five minutes.
Ms LEY: to pick out the key operative amendments and make the point that these are being moved to reflect concerns raised during the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee's inquiry into the bill. Key amendment (2) deals with the sunsetting of national environmental standards. This amendment responds to the committee's recommendation and will provide for the automatic repeal, or sunsetting, of interim national environmental standards. Amendment (3) responds to the committee's recommendation 1 and will require the first review of a national environmental standard to be completed within two years. Amendment (5) inserts into the standards and assurance bill a new schedule 3, which will enable all states and territories to obtain advice from the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. This will ensure that all states and territories have access to the best available science in relation to water resource issues. I commend the amendments to the House.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (19:45): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (19:49): Unfortunately the government has left it very late in the day and the week to bring this important bill on for debate in the House, which means I will have to be brief in my remarks. I'm very pleased to speak in support of this long overdue bill, not least of all because, as a result of the excellent and bipartisan work of my Liberal and Labor colleagues on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the government has agreed to improve the bill significantly by moving a series of amendments. I will address the amendments in a moment but, first, I think it's necessary to provide some context.
Under the framework set out in this bill, the government would be able to enter into agreements with other countries to allow Australian security and law enforcement agencies to, in effect, augment existing mutual assistance processes in specified circumstances. This is important because the current mutual assistance processes are cumbersome and can take a very long time. The bill has been prompted by the passage of the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act in the United States, which is more commonly known as the CLOUD Act. Under the CLOUD Act, their congress has authorised the United States government to enter into bilateral agreements with foreign governments for the purpose of allowing agencies located outside the United States to access data held within the United States. In short, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 would provide a framework for Australian law enforcement agencies and ASIO to obtain independently authorised international production orders to require designated communications providers located outside Australia to intercept electronic communications or access stored communications and communications data, and authorise designated communications providers located in Australia to comply with similar orders from foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The framework would be activated when Australia entered into a relevant agreement with a foreign country.
The Australian government has been in the process of negotiating such an agreement with the United States since 7 October 2019. On that date, the then Minister for Home Affairs, now the Minister for Defence, gave himself a big pat on the back when he announced that negotiations had commenced. That announcement was made over 18 months after the CLOUD Act came into effect and a week after the United Kingdom announced that it had successfully concluded its negotiations on a CLOUD Act agreement with United States. And the Morrison government is still negotiating with the United States and is only now getting around to bringing this bill on for debate. The Morrison government has been painfully slow to pursue and realise this opportunity, and, let's be clear, while this bill is a necessary and welcome step, it is not sufficient; the government still needs to do the deal with the United States. Labor sincerely hopes the government manages to do so. It has already taken far too long. So that's a little bit about the bill and the context.
Turning to the amendments the government will be moving, the original version of the bill is largely silent on a range of important matters, including the purposes for which a foreign government could seek information or request assistance under an international production order and who the government could seek information about. The government's original position was to say that all these matters would be addressed in the agreements that it reached with foreign countries, including the United States, but that is not good enough. It is not the role of the parliament to write blank cheques for the executive branch of government.
The intelligence and security committee made 23 bipartisan recommendations to improve the bill and address the various concerns which had been raised. I'm pleased to see that the government has largely agreed to implement those recommendations.
I'd like to conclude by making a few comments about how things are not supposed to work when it comes to national security. On 8 June this year, the Prime Minister misused a press conference about a successful multiagency and multinational law enforcement operation, Operation Ironside, to put a false position to the Australian people about national security. The Prime Minister told Australians, falsely, that this bill, the international production orders bill, did not have bipartisan support, and he made those comments despite the fact that Labor and Liberal members of the intelligence and security committee had tabled a bipartisan report last month which made 23 recommendations to improve the bill and, subject to those changes being implemented, recommended swift passage of the legislation. All of the 23 recommendations by the committee were bipartisan. The recommendation to pass the bill was bipartisan. In fact the only thing about this bill that has not been bipartisan has been the Prime Minister's grossly irresponsible press conference on 8 June. It was a disgraceful performance unworthy of a member of parliament, let alone a minister, let alone the Prime Minister. It reminded me of comments made by former Attorney-General George Brandis in his valedictory speech over three years ago.
I have referred to these comments once before in this House, and the Prime Minister's comments on 8 June have given me cause to do so again. In that valedictory speech, Mr Brandis listed three reasons why domestic national security policy in Australia has been successful. One of the reasons he nominated was bipartisanship. Referring to eight—that's right, eight—national security bills introduced by the coalition, Mr Brandis said:
All eight tranches of legislation were passed with the opposition's support after scrutiny by the PJCIS. It was a fine example of government and parliament working hand in hand to protect the national interest. I have heard some powerful voices argue that the coalition should open a political front against the Labor Party on the issue of domestic national security. I could not disagree more strongly. One of the main reasons why the government has earned the confidence of the public on national security policy is there has never been a credible suggestion that political motives have intruded. Were they to do so, confidence not just in the government's handling of national security but in the agencies themselves would be damaged and their capacity to do their work compromised. Nothing could be more irresponsible than to hazard the safety of the public by creating a confected dispute for political advantage. To his credit, the Prime Minister has always resisted such entreaties.
Of course, the Prime Minister that Mr Brandis was referring to was not the current Prime Minister but Malcolm Turnbull. Regrettably, if the current Prime Minister's disgraceful press conference on 8 June is anything to go by, Mr Brandis could not have made the same comments about the current Prime Minister, because this Prime Minister has shown a willingness to play politics with national security. As Mr Brandis rightly argued, that is bad for Australia's security and law enforcement agencies and it is bad for the Australian people. The Prime Minister needs to stop it. I reiterate the comments made by George Brandis more than three years ago:
Nothing could be more irresponsible than to hazard the safety of the public by creating a confected dispute for political advantage.
The Prime Minister and his supporters should heed those words. I commend the bill, with the government's amendments, to the House.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (19:56): I just want to put a few remarks on the record about the Greens' grave concerns with the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020, and those will be expanded upon when the matter reaches the Senate. As has been outlined by the minister and the opposition spokesperson, what this bill does is introduce a regime for Australian agencies to obtain international production orders that require designated communications providers overseas to intercept communications and provide access to stored communications and telecommunications data.
There are some very real concerns with the lack of protections and the lack of parameters that are set out in this bill. As I say, the Greens will expand on this when the bill reaches the Senate, as it appears destined to, but one very strong concern is the lack of required parameters for international agreements and incoming orders that are made under them. The bill lacks both the protections that are included under the equivalent United States legislation and the safeguards provided for under mutual assistance laws with respect to matters such as protection of human rights, prohibition on torture, and restrictions on accessing data about Australian persons. It is not at all clear whether international agreements will be subject to adequate scrutiny, including by the parliament, before coming into effect. And what about the question of what happens when any such agreements are amended? There is a real question about whether it's appropriate for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as opposed to members of the judiciary, to be in the practice of issuing orders with respect to these kinds of matters. We also note the lack of proper protections for journalists' telecommunications data compared with domestic provisions, given that we are dealing here with arrangements that are reached overseas and companies that operate overseas.
There's a real question, as well, about the appropriateness of IPOs for purposes relating to control orders, in particular for monitoring compliance with control orders, and the fact that powers will be available for those purposes under IPOs that are not currently available within Australia. There's a question about the appropriateness of IPOs for national security purposes, particularly given the breadth of powers to access telecommunications data, and whether the safeguards for these IPOs are adequate. Critically, given the crucial role that they will play, there are some real questions that remain from this bill, even as amended, about the adequacy of provisions enabling service providers to object to IPOs, both in terms of the grounds for objection and the means for considering and determining such objections.
It's not possible—and this is a big part of the problem—to assess the adequacy of safeguards in nearly all aspects of the proposed regime in the bill, because the bill really only sets out a minimal framework for oversight with an apparent intention for many critical details, including safeguards, to be governed by the terms of individual agreements between Australia and other countries. Some civil society stakeholders have made the point that they're concerned that AAT members lack the independence required to properly fulfil the role of considering and issuing IPOs. We have heard in this place a sustained assault on what political parties do with the AAT, and I think if you accept those arguments you've got to take them through to the logical conclusion and raise the question about whether the AAT, as opposed to members of the judiciary, is the appropriate place for dealing with many of these crucial issues. The Australian Privacy Foundation has made that point very, very clearly.
We also have no guarantee that agreements between countries for data are going to be made public in full. It is for this reason that even the human rights committee, in inquiring into this bill, considered that the bill may not adequately protect the right to privacy and did raise questions about further amendments. In light of the time, the Greens will make further contributions and set out the significant problems with this bill when it reaches the Senate.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (20:01): I well understand that there's a central role for government to maintain our national security and public safety. Personally, the majority of my working life has been in uniform as a member of the regular army in intelligence services and in working for a large US defence contractor. However, in the case of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020 I do associate with the comments made by the member for Melbourne. I believe that this is no way to address such an important issue of national security, to rush it through after the parliament was due to rise this evening. Surely, this is a matter that needs to be considered in detail by the parliament with a full debate allowed. Remember, this is another piece of security legislation against the backdrop of what many people, including me, regard as excessive use of new security legislation in this country. I'm mindful that since 9/11 more than 80 piece of legislation have gone through this place to deal with national security and border protection, and you can add that number to the hundreds of pieces of legislation in the parliaments of the state and territory governments. So I suggest the best thing to do would be to park this bill tonight and to allow a long and detailed debate tomorrow to let all members ventilate the concerns that they might have. Then we can have a considered vote on it tomorrow. It shouldn't be effectively left to the Senate to deal with this. In the circumstances, I'm left with no option but to oppose it tonight. I suspect that I will join the member for Melbourne in calling a division, not necessarily because I oppose all of the provisions of the bill, but I do think there are issues and concerns that need to be addressed. I think we should debate it tomorrow in the light of day.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (20:03): I would like to thank my colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (International Production Orders) Bill 2020. The government's first priority is to ensure the safety and security of all Australians. To this end it is critical to equip our law enforcement agencies and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, ASIO, with the tools they need to gather intelligence and evidence to combat serious crimes, including child sexual abuse and terrorism. The bill creates a new framework in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 for international production orders to obtain electronic data directly from communications providers in foreign countries pursuant to international agreements. Such international agreements, together with this legislation, will significantly increase the effectiveness of Australia's ability to detect, prevent, investigate and prosecute serious crime by reducing the significant delay caused by traditional international cooperation processes.
The increasingly sophisticated way in which criminals and national security threats target the Australian way of life must be combated with a modernised and fit-for-purpose international crime cooperation framework. The framework in the bill is underpinned by robust protections, oversight and accountability measures to ensure that data obtained in accordance with an agreement is accessed, handled and used appropriately, in line with the community's expectations.
The bill also ensures that Australian providers are able to respond to incoming orders and requests from trusted partner countries, from foreign countries which Australia has an agreement with. Australia must do its part to support its law enforcement partners and contribute to regional and global efforts to combat serious crime. The passage of this bill is a critical step to finalising a bilateral CLOUD Act agreement with the United States, a longstanding trusted partner and home to many global communications providers, including Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft.
The bill has been extensively reviewed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, and a report was tabled by the committee chair, Senator James Paterson, on 12 May 2020. The government thanks the committee for its review of these important reforms. This bill demonstrates that the government is committed to ensuring that Australia's law enforcement agencies and our foreign partners have effective tools to protect Australia, its peoples and its interests.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.
A division having been called and the bells having been rung—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no.
Bill read a second time.
Consideration in Detail
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (20:11): I present a replacement explanatory memorandum and a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (502) as circulated together.
Leave granted.
Mrs ANDREWS: I move government amendments (1) to (502) on sheet QL173 together:
(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 11 and 12), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 15 and 16), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 19 and 20), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 25), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(5) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 25), after item 5, insert:
Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986
5A After section 34
Insert:
34AA Disclosure of IPO information to the Ombudsman and the Australian Designated Authority etc.
(1) The Inspector‑General, or a member of the staff of the Inspector‑General, may divulge or communicate IPO information to an Ombudsman official if:
(a) the information is relevant to the Ombudsman's functions or powers; and
(b) the Inspector‑General is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Ombudsman has satisfactory arrangements in place for protecting the information.
(2) The Inspector‑General, or a member of the staff of the Inspector‑General, may divulge or communicate IPO information to an Australian Designated Authority official if:
(a) the information is relevant to the Australian Designated Authority's functions or powers under Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979; and
(b) the Inspector‑General is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Australian Designated Authority has satisfactory arrangements in place for protecting the information.
(3) In this section:
Australian Designated Authority has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
Australian Designated Authority official means:
(a) the Australian Designated Authority; or
(b) a person who:
(i) is an APS employee in the Department administered by the Attorney‑General; and
(ii) has duties relating to the functions or powers of the Australian Designated Authority under Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
IPO information means:
(a) protected information within the meaning of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979; or
(b) information relevant to the operation of that Schedule.
Ombudsman official has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
(6) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 26), before the heading specifying International Criminal Court Act 2002, insert:
Intelligence Services Act 2001
5B After paragraph 29(1 ) ( be)
Insert:
(bf) to commence, by the earlier of the following:
(i) the fifth anniversary of the day on which Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 commences;
(ii) the third anniversary of the day on which the first designated international agreement (within the meaning of that Schedule) enters into force for Australia;
a review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of that Schedule; and
(7) Schedule 1, page 8 (before line 20), after item 13, insert:
Ombudsman Act 1976
13A After subsection 35(3)
Insert:
(3A) Subsection (2) does not prevent an officer from divulging or communicating IPO information to an IGIS official if:
(a) the information is relevant to the functions or powers of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security; and
(b) the Ombudsman is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security has satisfactory arrangements in place for protecting the information.
(3B) Subsection (2) does not prevent an officer from divulging or communicating IPO information to an Australian Designated Authority official if:
(a) the information is relevant to the Australian Designated Authority's functions or powers under Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979; and
(b) the Ombudsman is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the Australian Designated Authority has satisfactory arrangements in place for protecting the information.
13B At the end of section 35
Add:
(9) In this section:
Australian Designated Authority has the same meaning as in Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
Australian Designated Authority official means:
(a) the Australian Designated Authority; or
(b) a person who:
(i) is an APS employee in the Department administered by the Attorney‑General; and
(ii) has duties relating to the functions or powers of the Australian Designated Authority under Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
IGIS official has the same meaning as in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.
IPO information means:
(a) protected information within the meaning of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979; or
(b) information relevant to the operation of that Schedule.
(8) Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (lines 3 and 4), omit the item.
(9) Schedule 1, item 17, page 9 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.
(10) Schedule 1, item 18, page 9 (lines 7 to 10), omit the item.
(11) Schedule 1, item 43, page 12 (line 9), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(12) Schedule 1, item 43, page 12 (lines 12 and 13), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(13) Schedule 1, item 43, page 13 (after line 25), after the definition of Australian Designated Authority in clause 2, insert:
based in a foreign country has the meaning given by clause 10A.
(14) Schedule 1, item 43, page 13 (lines 26 and 27), omit the definition of carriage service in clause 2.
(15) Schedule 1, item 43, page 13 (lines 28 and 29), omit the definition of carriage service provider in clause 2.
(16) Schedule 1, item 43, page 14 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of carrier in clause 2.
(17) Schedule 1, item 43, page 14 (lines 24 to 29), omit the definition of designated communications provider in clause 2.
(18) Schedule 1, item 43, page 14 (after line 32), after the definition of eligible Judge in clause 2, insert:
eligible position ‑holder means an ASIO employee, or an ASIO affiliate, who holds, or is acting in, a position in the Organisation that is equivalent to or higher than a position occupied by an Executive Level 2 APS employee.
(19) Schedule 1, item 43, page 15 (lines 4 to 6), omit the definition of individual carriage service in clause 2.
(20) Schedule 1, item 43, page 15 (before line 7), before the definition of individual message/call application service in clause 2, insert:
individual transmission service means a transmissionservice to the extent to which the service is supplied using a particular telecommunications identifier.
(21) Schedule 1, item 43, page 15 (line 19), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(22) Schedule 1, item 43, page 16 (after line 22), after the definition of message/call application service provider in clause 2, insert:
network entity means a person who owns or operates a telecommunications network that is used to supply a transmission service to the public or a section of the public.
(23) Schedule 1, item 43, page 16 (after line 30), after the definition of nominated AAT Security Division member in clause 2, insert:
operates in a foreign country has the meaning given by clause 10A.
(24) Schedule 1, item 43, page 16 (after line 32), after the definition of posted in clause 2, insert:
prescribed communications provider means:
(a) a network entity; or
(b) a transmission service provider; or
(c) a message/call application service provider; or
(d) a storage/back‑up service provider; or
(e) a general electronic content service provider.
(25) Schedule 1, item 43, page 17 (after line 24), after the definition of relevant statistics in clause 2, insert:
senior position ‑holder has the same meaning as in the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979.
(26) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (line 3), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(27) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (after line 3), after the definition of service in clause 2, insert:
statutory requirements certificate means a certificate under subclause 3B(2).
(28) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (line 9), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(29) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (line 10), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(30) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (line 12), omit "carriage service provider", substitute "transmission service provider".
(31) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (line 13), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(32) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (line 15), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(33) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (line 16), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(34) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (line 18), omit "carrier", substitute "network entity".
(35) Schedule 1, item 43, page 18 (lines 19 and 20), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(36) Schedule 1, item 43, page 19 (line 23), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(37) Schedule 1, item 43, page 19 (line 26), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(38) Schedule 1, item 43, page 19 (line 27), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(39) Schedule 1, item 43, page 20 (line 24), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(40) Schedule 1, item 43, page 20 (line 26), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(41) Schedule 1, item 43, page 21 (line 16), omit "carrier", substitute "network entity".
(42) Schedule 1, item 43, page 21 (lines 16 and 17), omit "carriage service provider", substitute "transmission service provider".
(43) Schedule 1, item 43, page 22 (after line 8), after the definition of telephone number in clause 2, insert:
transmission service means a service for carrying communications by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy.
(44) Schedule 1, item 43, page 22 (before line 9), before the definition of uploaded in clause 2, insert:
transmission service provider means a person who supplies a transmission service to the public or a section of the public.
(45) Schedule 1, item 43, page 22 (after line 9), after the definition of uploaded in clause 2, insert:
urgent circumstances has a meaning affected by clause 17A.
(46) Schedule 1, item 43, page 22 (line 17) to page 23 (line 10), omit subclauses 3(1) and (2), substitute:
Bilateral agreement
(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, if:
(a) there is an agreement between Australia and a foreign country; and
(b) a copy of the English text of the agreement is set out in the regulations; and
(c) the agreement has entered into force for Australia and the foreign country;
then:
(d) if the agreement is affected by an amendment, where:
(i) a copy of the English text of the amendment is set out in the regulations; and
(ii) the amendment has entered into force for Australia and the foreign country;
the agreement, as affected by such an amendment, is a designated international agreement; or
(e) if paragraph (d) does not apply—the agreement is a designated international agreement.
Note: An agreement mentioned in paragraph (a) is a treaty to which Australia is a party. Proposed treaty actions, such as amendments of treaties and extensions of the duration of treaties, are subject to Australia's treaty‑making process. In 2021, the parliamentary scrutiny process for proposed treaty actions included tabling in both Houses of the Parliament and consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
(1A) If:
(a) there is an agreement between Australia and a foreign country; and
(b) the agreement deals with (among other things) the issue of orders (however described) by a competent authority (however described) of the foreign country;
a copy of the English text of the agreement must not be set out in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1) (b) unless a statutory requirements certificate is in force under clause 3B in relation to the foreign country and the agreement.
(2) If:
(a) there is an agreement between Australia and a foreign country; and
(b) the agreement deals with (among other things) the issue of orders (however described) by a competent authority (however described) of the foreign country; and
(c) one or more offences against the law of the foreign country are death penalty offences;
a copy of the English text of the agreement must not be set out in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1) (b) unless the Minister has received a written assurance from the government of the foreign country, relating to the use or non‑use of Australian‑sourced information obtained by virtue of the agreement, in connection with any proceeding by way of a prosecution for a death penalty offence in the foreign country. For the purposes of this subclause, information is obtained by virtue of the agreement if it is obtained in accordance with such an order.
Note 1: For Australian‑sourced information, see subclause (8).
Note 2: For death penalty offence, see subclause (7A).
(47) Schedule 1, item 43, page 23 (lines 11 to 17), omit subclause 3(3), substitute:
Multilateral agreement
(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, if:
(a) there is an agreement between Australia and 2 or more foreign countries; and
(b) a copy of the English text of the agreement is set out in the regulations; and
(c) the agreement has entered into force for Australia;
then:
(d) if the agreement is affected by an amendment, where:
(i) a copy of the English text of the amendment is set out in the regulations; and
(ii) the amendment has entered into force for Australia;
the agreement, as affected by such an amendment, is a designated international agreement; or
(e) if paragraph (d) does not apply—the agreement is a designated international agreement.
Note: An agreement mentioned in paragraph (a) is a treaty to which Australia is a party. Proposed treaty actions, such as amendments of treaties and extensions of the duration of treaties, are subject to Australia's treaty‑making process. In 2021, the parliamentary scrutiny process for proposed treaty actions included tabling in both Houses of the Parliament and consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
(48) Schedule 1, item 43, page 23 (after line 21), after subclause 3(4), insert:
(4A) If:
(a) there is an agreement between Australia and 2 or more foreign countries; and
(b) the agreement deals with (among other things) the issue of orders (however described) by a competent authority (however described) of each of the foreign countries;
a foreign country that is a party to the agreement must not be declared under subclause (4) unless a statutory requirements certificate is in force under clause 3B in relation to the foreign country and the agreement.
(49) Schedule 1, item 43, page 23 (line 22) to page 24 (line 1), omit subclause 3(5), substitute:
(5) If:
(a) there is an agreement between Australia and 2 or more foreign countries; and
(b) the agreement deals with (among other things) the issue of orders (however described) by a competent authority (however described) of each of the foreign countries; and
(c) one or more offences against the law of one or more of those foreign countries are death penalty offences;
a foreign country covered by paragraph (c) must not be declared under subclause (4) unless the Minister has received a written assurance from the government of the foreign country, relating to the use or non‑use of Australian‑sourced information obtained by virtue of the agreement, in connection with any proceeding by way of a prosecution for a death penalty offence in the foreign country. For the purposes of this subclause, information is obtained by virtue of the agreement if it is obtained in accordance with such an order.
Note 1: For Australian‑sourced information, see subclause (8).
Note 2: For death penalty offence, see subclause (7A).
(50) Schedule 1, item 43, page 24 (after line 14), after subclause 3(7), insert:
Death penalty offence
(7A) For the purposes of this clause, death penalty offence means an offence against a law of a foreign country that is punishable by death.
(51) Schedule 1, item 43, page 24 (after line 25), after clause 3, insert:
3A Disallowance of regulations relating to designated international agreements
Scope
(1) This clause applies to regulations made for the purposes of clause 3.
Disallowance
(2) Either House of the Parliament may, following a motion in writing, pass a resolution disallowing the regulations. For the resolution to be effective:
(a) the notice must be given in that House within 15 sitting days of that House after the copy of the regulations was tabled in that House under section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003; and
(b) the resolution must be passed, in pursuance of the motion, within 15 sitting days of that House after the giving of that notice.
(3) If neither House passes such a resolution, the regulations takes effect on the day immediately after the last day upon which such a resolution could have been passed if it were assumed that notice of a motion to disallow the regulations was given in each House on the last day of the 15 sitting day period of that House mentioned in paragraph (2) (a).
(4) If:
(a) notice of a motion to disallow the regulations is given in a House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the copy of the regulations was tabled in that House under section 38 of the Legislation Act 2003; and
(b) at the end of 15 sitting days of that House after the giving of that notice of motion:
(i) the notice has not been withdrawn and the motion has not been called on; or
(ii) the motion has been called on, moved and (where relevant) seconded and has not been withdrawn or otherwise disposed of;
the regulations is then taken to have been disallowed, and subclause (3) does not apply to the regulations.
(5) Section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply to the regulations.
Note 1: The 15 sitting day notice period mentioned in paragraph (2) (a) of this clause is the same as the 15 sitting day notice period mentioned in paragraph 42(1) (a) of the Legislation Act 2003.
Note 2: The 15 sitting day disallowance period mentioned in paragraph (2) (b) of this clause is the same as the 15 sitting day disallowance period mentioned in paragraph 42(1) (b) of the Legislation Act 2003.
3B Statutory requirements certificate—designated international agreements
Scope
(1) This section applies if:
(a) there is an agreement between Australia and one or more foreign countries; and
(b) the agreement deals with (among other things) the issue of orders (however described) by a competent authority (however described) of the foreign country, or each of the foreign countries, concerned.
Certificate
(2) The Attorney‑General may, after consulting the Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, issue a certificate (a statutory requirements certificate) in relation to:
(a) a foreign country that is a party to the agreement; and
(b) the agreement.
(3) A statutory requirements certificate is a notifiable instrument.
(4) The Attorney‑General must not issue a statutory requirements certificate in relation to:
(a) a foreign country that is a party to the agreement; and
(b) the agreement;
unless the Attorney‑General is satisfied that:
(c) the agreement is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard only to:
(i) the foreign country's respect for the rule of law; and
(ii) the foreign country's respect for its obligations under international law relating to human rights; and
(d) the following requirements are met in relation to orders (however described) issued by a competent authority (however described) of the foreign country:
(i) the agreement provides that orders are to be issued in compliance with the law of the foreign country;
(ii) the agreement provides that orders may only be issued for the purposes of obtaining information relevant to the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of serious crime (as defined in the agreement);
(iii) the agreement provides that orders may not be issued for the purposes of investigating, prosecuting or punishing a person on account of the person's political opinions;
(iv) the agreement, so far as it relates to orders, is appropriate in the circumstances, having regard only to the matters set out in subclause (5);
(v) the agreement does not permit orders to be issued for the purposes of obtaining information about the communications of a person who is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident of Australia;
(vi) the agreement provides for limitations and safeguards relating to the use, handling and disclosure of information obtained in accordance with orders;
(vii) the agreement does not permit orders to be issued on behalf of another country;
(viii) the agreement does not impose obligations on the foreign country to share information it has obtained in accordance with orders with another country; and
(e) if one or more offences against the law of the foreign country are death penalty offences (within the meaning of clause 3)—the Minister has received a written assurance from the government of the foreign country in accordance with subclause 3(2) or (5).
(5) For the purposes of subparagraph (4) (d) (iv), the matters are:
(a) criteria for the issuing of orders; and
(b) limitations on the scope and objects of orders; and
(c) limits on the periods for which orders are in force;
set out in the agreement or the law of the foreign country.
Copy of certificate to be given to the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
(6) If the Attorney‑General issues a statutory requirements certificate, the Attorney‑General must:
(a) give a copy of the certificate to the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties; and
(b) do so as soon as practicable after the certificate is issued.
3C Australia ' s treaty ‑making process
Nothing in this Schedule is intended to modify or limit the application of Australia's treaty‑making process relating to a designated international agreement, including the following proposed treaty actions:
(a) an amendment of a designated international agreement;
(b) an extension of the duration of a designated international agreement.
(52) Schedule 1, item 43, page 24 (line 29), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(53) Schedule 1, item 43, page 24 (line 32), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(54) Schedule 1, item 43, page 25 (line 5), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(55) Schedule 1, item 43, page 25 (line 13), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(56) Schedule 1, item 43, page 25 (line 16), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(57) Schedule 1, item 43, page 25 (line 21), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(58) Schedule 1, item 43, page 25 (line 29), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(59) Schedule 1, item 43, page 25 (line 32), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(60) Schedule 1, item 43, page 26 (line 3), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(61) Schedule 1, item 43, page 26 (line 12), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(62) Schedule 1, item 43, page 26 (line 15), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(63) Schedule 1, item 43, page 26 (line 25), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(64) Schedule 1, item 43, page 26 (line 28), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(65) Schedule 1, item 43, page 27 (line 3), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(66) Schedule 1, item 43, page 27 (after line 23), after clause 10, insert:
10A When a prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country
Based in a foreign country—individual
(1) For the purposes of the application of this Schedule to a prescribed communications provider who is an individual, the provider is based in a foreign country if, and only if, the provider is ordinarily resident in the foreign country.
Based in a foreign country—body corporate
(2) For the purposes of the application of this Schedule to a prescribed communications provider that is a body corporate, the provider is based in a foreign country if, and only if:
(a) the provider is incorporated in the foreign country; or
(b) the provider has its principal place of business in the foreign country.
Operates in a foreign country
(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, a prescribed communications provider operates in a foreign country if, and only if:
(a) the provider handles communications in the foreign country; or
(b) the provider holds stored communications in the foreign country; or
(c) the provider holds telecommunications data in the foreign country.
(67) Schedule 1, item 43, page 28 (line 1), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(68) Schedule 1, item 43, page 28 (line 14), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(69) Schedule 1, item 43, page 28 (lines 18 and 19), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(70) Schedule 1, item 43, page 31 (line 1), omit subparagraph 17(1) (a) (i).
(71) Schedule 1, item 43, page 31 (line 16), after "person", insert "under subclause (1)".
(72) Schedule 1, item 43, page 31 (after line 20), after subclause 17(3), insert:
(3A) The Attorney‑General may, by writing, nominate a person who is a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue international production orders under Part 4 of this Schedule.
(3B) A nomination of a person under subclause (3A) ceases to have effect if the person ceases to be a Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
(73) Schedule 1, item 43, page 31 (after line 30), after clause 17, insert:
17A Urgent circumstances
(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, it is necessary, because of urgent circumstances, to make an application under Part 2 or 3 of this Schedule for an international production order by telephone if, and only if:
(a) an imminent risk of serious harm to a person or substantial damage to property exists; and
(b) the order is necessary for the purpose of dealing with that risk; and
(c) it is not practicable in the circumstances to make the application in writing.
(2) For the purposes of this Schedule, it is necessary, because of urgent circumstances, to make an application under Part 4 of this Schedule for an international production order by telephone if, and only if:
(a) the delay caused by making a written application may be prejudicial to security; and
(b) it is not practicable in the circumstances to make the application in writing.
(3) For the purposes of this Schedule, it is necessary, because of urgent circumstances, for the Attorney‑General to consent orally to the making of an application under Part 4 of this Schedule for an international production order if, and only if:
(a) the delay caused by consenting in writing may be prejudicial to security; and
(b) it is not practicable in the circumstances to consent in writing.
(74) Schedule 1, item 43, page 32 (lines 23 and 24), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(75) Schedule 1, item 43, page 33 (line 11), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(76) Schedule 1, item 43, page 33 (line 21), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(77) Schedule 1, item 43, page 33 (line 24), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(78) Schedule 1, item 43, page 35 (line 14), omit "clause 172", substitute "clause 17A (urgent circumstances) and clause 172 (action required)".
(79) Schedule 1, item 43, page 36 (line 2), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(80) Schedule 1, item 43, page 36 (line 7), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(81) Schedule 1, item 43, page 37 (line 25), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(82) Schedule 1, item 43, page 37 (line 32) to page 38 (line 1), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(83) Schedule 1, item 43, page 38 (line 24), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(84) Schedule 1, item 43, page 38 (lines 31 and 32), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(85) Schedule 1, item 43, page 39 (line 30), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(86) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (line 1), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(87) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (lines 8 and 9), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(88) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (line 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(89) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (lines 12 and 13), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(90) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (line 14), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(91) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (line 15), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(92) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (line 19), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(93) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (after line 21), after paragraph 30(2) (b), insert:
(ba) the person who made the application on behalf of the agency reasonably suspects that the prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country that is a party to the designated international agreement nominated in the application; and
(94) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (lines 28 and 29), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(95) Schedule 1, item 43, page 40 (line 31), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(96) Schedule 1, item 43, page 41 (lines 2 and 3), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(97) Schedule 1, item 43, page 41 (line 6), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(98) Schedule 1, item 43, page 41 (line 12), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(99) Schedule 1, item 43, page 41 (line 29), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(100) Schedule 1, item 43, page 41 (lines 31 and 32), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(101) Schedule 1, item 43, page 41 (line 34), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(102) Schedule 1, item 43, page 42 (line 3), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(103) Schedule 1, item 43, page 42 (lines 24 and 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(104) Schedule 1, item 43, page 43 (lines 7 and 8), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(105) Schedule 1, item 43, page 43 (line 12), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(106) Schedule 1, item 43, page 45 (line 15), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(107) Schedule 1, item 43, page 45 (line 20), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(108) Schedule 1, item 43, page 46 (line 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(109) Schedule 1, item 43, page 46 (line 18), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(110) Schedule 1, item 43, page 46 (line 19), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(111) Schedule 1, item 43, page 46 (line 29), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(112) Schedule 1, item 43, page 47 (line 7), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(113) Schedule 1, item 43, page 47 (line 20), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(114) Schedule 1, item 43, page 48 (line 6), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(115) Schedule 1, item 43, page 48 (lines 7 and 8), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(116) Schedule 1, item 43, page 48 (lines 22 and 23), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(117) Schedule 1, item 43, page 49 (line 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(118) Schedule 1, item 43, page 50 (line 9), omit "clause 172", substitute "clause 17A (urgent circumstances) and clause 172 (action required)".
(119) Schedule 1, item 43, page 51 (line 26), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(120) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (line 2), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(121) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (line 7), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(122) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (line 11), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(123) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (lines 14 and 15), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(124) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (lines 15 and 16), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(125) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (line 18), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(126) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (line 19), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(127) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (line 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(128) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (line 29), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(129) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (line 33), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(130) Schedule 1, item 43, page 52 (lines 36 and 37), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(131) Schedule 1, item 43, page 53 (lines 1 and 2), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(132) Schedule 1, item 43, page 53 (after line 2), after paragraph 39(2) (a), insert:
(aa) the person who made the application on behalf of the agency reasonably suspects that the prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country that is a party to the designated international agreement nominated in the application; and
(133) Schedule 1, item 43, page 53 (lines 15 and 16), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(134) Schedule 1, item 43, page 53 (line 21), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(135) Schedule 1, item 43, page 53 (line 26), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(136) Schedule 1, item 43, page 55 (line 28), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(137) Schedule 1, item 43, page 56 (line 3), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(138) Schedule 1, item 43, page 56 (line 13), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(139) Schedule 1, item 43, page 56 (lines 30 and 31), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(140) Schedule 1, item 43, page 57 (line 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(141) Schedule 1, item 43, page 57 (line 25), omit "clause 172", substitute "clause 17A (urgent circumstances) and clause 172 (action required)".
(142) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (line 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(143) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (line 18), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(144) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (line 22), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(145) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (line 24), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(146) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (line 26), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(147) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (lines 27 and 28), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(148) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (line 30), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(149) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (line 31), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(150) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (line 33), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(151) Schedule 1, item 43, page 59 (lines 33 and 34), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(152) Schedule 1, item 43, page 60 (lines 3 and 4), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(153) Schedule 1, item 43, page 60 (lines 7 and 8), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(154) Schedule 1, item 43, page 60 (lines 11 and 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(155) Schedule 1, item 43, page 60 (line 15), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(156) Schedule 1, item 43, page 60 (lines 18 and 19), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(157) Schedule 1, item 43, page 60 (line 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(158) Schedule 1, item 43, page 60 (after line 23), after paragraph 48(2) (a), insert:
(aa) the person who made the application on behalf of the agency reasonably suspects that the prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country that is a party to the designated international agreement nominated in the application; and
(159) Schedule 1, item 43, page 60 (lines 35 and 36), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(160) Schedule 1, item 43, page 60 (line 38), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(161) Schedule 1, item 43, page 61 (line 4), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(162) Schedule 1, item 43, page 61 (line 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(163) Schedule 1, item 43, page 62 (line 17), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(164) Schedule 1, item 43, page 62 (line 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(165) Schedule 1, item 43, page 63 (lines 7 and 8), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(166) Schedule 1, item 43, page 63 (lines 16 and 17), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(167) Schedule 1, item 43, page 64 (lines 11 and 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(168) Schedule 1, item 43, page 64 (line 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(169) Schedule 1, item 43, page 65 (line 1), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(170) Schedule 1, item 43, page 65 (line 4), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(171) Schedule 1, item 43, page 65 (line 32), omit "clause 172", substitute "clause 17A (urgent circumstances) and clause 172 (action required)".
(172) Schedule 1, item 43, page 66 (line 18), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(173) Schedule 1, item 43, page 66 (line 23), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(174) Schedule 1, item 43, page 68 (line 9), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(175) Schedule 1, item 43, page 68 (lines 16 and 17), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(176) Schedule 1, item 43, page 69 (line 7), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(177) Schedule 1, item 43, page 69 (lines 14 and 15), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(178) Schedule 1, item 43, page 70 (line 11), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(179) Schedule 1, item 43, page 70 (line 14), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(180) Schedule 1, item 43, page 70 (lines 21 and 22), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(181) Schedule 1, item 43, page 70 (line 23), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(182) Schedule 1, item 43, page 70 (lines 25 and 26), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(183) Schedule 1, item 43, page 70 (line 27), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(184) Schedule 1, item 43, page 70 (line 28), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(185) Schedule 1, item 43, page 70 (line 32), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(186) Schedule 1, item 43, page 71 (after line 2), after paragraph 60(2) (b), insert:
(ba) the person who made the application on behalf of the agency reasonably suspects that the prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country that is a party to the designated international agreement nominated in the application; and
(187) Schedule 1, item 43, page 71 (lines 9 and 10), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(188) Schedule 1, item 43, page 71 (line 12), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(189) Schedule 1, item 43, page 71 (lines 19 and 20), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(190) Schedule 1, item 43, page 71 (lines 25 and 26), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(191) Schedule 1, item 43, page 71 (lines 37 and 38), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(192) Schedule 1, item 43, page 72 (line 2), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(193) Schedule 1, item 43, page 72 (line 32), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(194) Schedule 1, item 43, page 72 (lines 34 and 35), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(195) Schedule 1, item 43, page 72 (line 37), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(196) Schedule 1, item 43, page 73 (line 8), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(197) Schedule 1, item 43, page 73 (lines 34 and 35), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(198) Schedule 1, item 43, page 74 (line 11), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(199) Schedule 1, item 43, page 74 (line 16), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(200) Schedule 1, item 43, page 75 (line 27), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(201) Schedule 1, item 43, page 79 (lines 2 and 3), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(202) Schedule 1, item 43, page 79 (line 6), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(203) Schedule 1, item 43, page 79 (line 32), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(204) Schedule 1, item 43, page 80 (line 5), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(205) Schedule 1, item 43, page 80 (line 6), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(206) Schedule 1, item 43, page 80 (line 19), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(207) Schedule 1, item 43, page 80 (line 30), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(208) Schedule 1, item 43, page 81 (line 8), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(209) Schedule 1, item 43, page 81 (line 28), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(210) Schedule 1, item 43, page 81 (lines 29 and 30), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(211) Schedule 1, item 43, page 82 (lines 10 and 11), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(212) Schedule 1, item 43, page 82 (line 27), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(213) Schedule 1, item 43, page 83 (line 23), omit "clause 172", substitute "clause 17A (urgent circumstances) and clause 172 (action required)".
(214) Schedule 1, item 43, page 85 (line 9), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(215) Schedule 1, item 43, page 85 (line 17), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(216) Schedule 1, item 43, page 85 (line 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(217) Schedule 1, item 43, page 85 (line 26), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(218) Schedule 1, item 43, page 85 (lines 29 and 30), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(219) Schedule 1, item 43, page 85 (lines 30 and 31), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(220) Schedule 1, item 43, page 85 (line 33), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(221) Schedule 1, item 43, page 85 (line 34), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(222) Schedule 1, item 43, page 86 (line 6), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(223) Schedule 1, item 43, page 86 (line 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(224) Schedule 1, item 43, page 86 (line 14), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(225) Schedule 1, item 43, page 86 (lines 17 and 18), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(226) Schedule 1, item 43, page 86 (lines 21 and 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(227) Schedule 1, item 43, page 86 (after line 22), after paragraph 69(2) (b), insert:
(ba) the person who made the application on behalf of the agency reasonably suspects that the prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country that is a party to the designated international agreement nominated in the application; and
(228) Schedule 1, item 43, page 87 (lines 2 and 3), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(229) Schedule 1, item 43, page 87 (line 7), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(230) Schedule 1, item 43, page 87 (line 12), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(231) Schedule 1, item 43, page 90 (line 6), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(232) Schedule 1, item 43, page 90 (line 18), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(233) Schedule 1, item 43, page 90 (line 28), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(234) Schedule 1, item 43, page 91 (lines 11 and 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(235) Schedule 1, item 43, page 91 (line 24), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(236) Schedule 1, item 43, page 92 (line 11), omit "clause 172", substitute "clause 17A (urgent circumstances) and clause 172 (action required)".
(237) Schedule 1, item 43, page 93 (line 30), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(238) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (line 8), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(239) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (line 13), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(240) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (lines 13 and 14), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(241) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (line 16), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(242) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (lines 17 and 18), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(243) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (lines 18 and 19), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(244) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (line 22), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(245) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (lines 22 and 23), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(246) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (lines 23 and 24), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(247) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (line 29), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(248) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (line 33), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(249) Schedule 1, item 43, page 94 (line 37), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(250) Schedule 1, item 43, page 95 (line 3), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(251) Schedule 1, item 43, page 95 (line 9), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(252) Schedule 1, item 43, page 95 (lines 12 and 13), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(253) Schedule 1, item 43, page 95 (after line 13), after paragraph 78(2) (b), insert:
(ba) the person who made the application on behalf of the agency reasonably suspects that the prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country that is a party to the designated international agreement nominated in the application; and
(254) Schedule 1, item 43, page 95 (lines 32 and 33), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(255) Schedule 1, item 43, page 95 (line 35), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(256) Schedule 1, item 43, page 95 (line 39), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(257) Schedule 1, item 43, page 96 (line 6), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(258) Schedule 1, item 43, page 98 (line 6), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(259) Schedule 1, item 43, page 98 (line 18), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(260) Schedule 1, item 43, page 98 (lines 31 and 32), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(261) Schedule 1, item 43, page 99 (lines 6 and 7), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(262) Schedule 1, item 43, page 100 (lines 15 and 16), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(263) Schedule 1, item 43, page 100 (line 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(264) Schedule 1, item 43, page 101 (line 10), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(265) Schedule 1, item 43, page 101 (line 13), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(266) Schedule 1, item 43, page 101 (line 19), omit "an ASIO employee", substitute "a senior position‑holder".
(267) Schedule 1, item 43, page 101 (lines 22 and 23), omit "ASIO employees who, or classes of ASIO employees who", substitute "senior position‑holders who, or classes of senior position‑holders who".
(268) Schedule 1, item 43, page 102 (line 1), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(269) Schedule 1, item 43, page 102 (line 4), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(270) Schedule 1, item 43, page 102 (line 17), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(271) Schedule 1, item 43, page 103 (after line 16), at the end of subclause 83(9), add:
Note: See also clause 17A (urgent circumstances).
(272) Schedule 1, item 43, page 103 (before line 17), before subclause 83(10), insert:
(9A) At the same time as a request is made by a person under subclause (9), the person must inform the Attorney‑General of the particulars of the urgent circumstances because of which the person thought it necessary for the Attorney‑General to consent orally to the making of the application concerned.
(273) Schedule 1, item 43, page 104 (line 9), omit "clause 172", substitute "clause 17A (urgent circumstances) and clause 172 (action required)".
(274) Schedule 1, item 43, page 104 (line 24), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(275) Schedule 1, item 43, page 104 (line 29), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(276) Schedule 1, item 43, page 106 (line 20), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(277) Schedule 1, item 43, page 106 (line 23), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(278) Schedule 1, item 43, page 106 (lines 30 and 31), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(279) Schedule 1, item 43, page 107 (line 1), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(280) Schedule 1, item 43, page 107 (lines 3 and 4), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(281) Schedule 1, item 43, page 107 (line 5), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(282) Schedule 1, item 43, page 107 (line 6), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(283) Schedule 1, item 43, page 107 (line 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(284) Schedule 1, item 43, page 107 (after line 12), after paragraph 89(2) (b), insert:
(ba) the person who made the application on behalf of the Organisation reasonably suspects that the prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country that is a party to the designated international agreement nominated in the application; and
(285) Schedule 1, item 43, page 107 (lines 19 and 20), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(286) Schedule 1, item 43, page 108 (lines 6 and 7), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(287) Schedule 1, item 43, page 108 (line 11), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(288) Schedule 1, item 43, page 108 (line 26), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(289) Schedule 1, item 43, page 108 (lines 28 and 29), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(290) Schedule 1, item 43, page 108 (line 31), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(291) Schedule 1, item 43, page 108 (line 39), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(292) Schedule 1, item 43, page 109 (lines 21 and 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(293) Schedule 1, item 43, page 110 (lines 2 and 3), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(294) Schedule 1, item 43, page 110 (line 9), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(295) Schedule 1, item 43, page 111 (line 13), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(296) Schedule 1, item 43, page 111 (line 17), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(297) Schedule 1, item 43, page 112 (line 14), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(298) Schedule 1, item 43, page 112 (line 20), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(299) Schedule 1, item 43, page 112 (line 21), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(300) Schedule 1, item 43, page 112 (line 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(301) Schedule 1, item 43, page 113 (line 4), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(302) Schedule 1, item 43, page 113 (line 17), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(303) Schedule 1, item 43, page 114 (line 4), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(304) Schedule 1, item 43, page 114 (lines 5 and 6), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(305) Schedule 1, item 43, page 114 (lines 20 and 21), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(306) Schedule 1, item 43, page 115 (line 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(307) Schedule 1, item 43, page 115 (line 16), omit "an ASIO employee", substitute "a senior position‑holder".
(308) Schedule 1, item 43, page 115 (lines 19 and 20), omit "ASIO employees who, or classes of ASIO employees who", substitute "senior position‑holders who, or classes of senior position‑holders who".
(309) Schedule 1, item 43, page 116 (after line 21), at the end of subclause 92(8), add:
Note: See also clause 17A (urgent circumstances).
(310) Schedule 1, item 43, page 116 (before line 22), before subclause 92(9), insert:
(8A) At the same time as a request is made by a person under subclause (8), the person must inform the Attorney‑General of the particulars of the urgent circumstances because of which the person thought it necessary for the Attorney‑General to consent orally to the making of the application concerned.
(311) Schedule 1, item 43, page 117 (line 12), omit "clause 172", substitute "clause 17A (urgent circumstances) and clause 172 (action required)".
(312) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (line 1), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(313) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (line 11), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(314) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (line 16), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(315) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (line 20), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(316) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (lines 23 and 24), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(317) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (lines 24 and 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(318) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (line 27), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(319) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (line 28), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(320) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (line 34), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(321) Schedule 1, item 43, page 119 (line 38), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(322) Schedule 1, item 43, page 120 (line 4), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(323) Schedule 1, item 43, page 120 (lines 7 and 8), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(324) Schedule 1, item 43, page 120 (lines 11 and 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(325) Schedule 1, item 43, page 120 (after line 12), after paragraph 98(2) (b), insert:
(ba) the person who made the application on behalf of the Organisation reasonably suspects that the prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country that is a party to the designated international agreement nominated in the application; and
(326) Schedule 1, item 43, page 120 (line 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(327) Schedule 1, item 43, page 120 (line 29), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(328) Schedule 1, item 43, page 120 (line 34), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(329) Schedule 1, item 43, page 122 (line 31), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(330) Schedule 1, item 43, page 123 (line 3), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(331) Schedule 1, item 43, page 123 (line 13), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(332) Schedule 1, item 43, page 123 (lines 30 and 31), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(333) Schedule 1, item 43, page 124 (line 11), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(334) Schedule 1, item 43, page 124 (line 17), omit "an ASIO employee", substitute "an eligible position‑holder".
(335) Schedule 1, item 43, page 124 (lines 20 and 21), omit "ASIO employees who, or classes of ASIO employees who", substitute "eligible position‑holders who, or classes of eligible position‑holders who".
(336) Schedule 1, item 43, page 124 (line 30), omit "clause 172", substitute "clause 17A (urgent circumstances) and clause 172 (action required)".
(337) Schedule 1, item 43, page 126 (line 16), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(338) Schedule 1, item 43, page 126 (line 23), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(339) Schedule 1, item 43, page 126 (line 28), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(340) Schedule 1, item 43, page 126 (lines 28 and 29), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(341) Schedule 1, item 43, page 126 (line 31), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(342) Schedule 1, item 43, page 126 (lines 32 and 33), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(343) Schedule 1, item 43, page 126 (line 33) to page 127 (line 1), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(344) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (line 4), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(345) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (lines 4 and 5), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(346) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (lines 5 and 6), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(347) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (line 11), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(348) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (line 15), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(349) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (line 19), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(350) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (line 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(351) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (line 28), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(352) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (lines 31 and 32), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(353) Schedule 1, item 43, page 127 (after line 32), after paragraph 107(2) (a), insert:
(aa) the person who made the application on behalf of the Organisation reasonably suspects that the prescribed communications provider is based in, or operates in, a foreign country that is a party to the designated international agreement nominated in the application; and
(354) Schedule 1, item 43, page 128 (line 5), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(355) Schedule 1, item 43, page 128 (line 8), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(356) Schedule 1, item 43, page 128 (line 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(357) Schedule 1, item 43, page 128 (line 18), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(358) Schedule 1, item 43, page 129 (line 16), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(359) Schedule 1, item 43, page 129 (line 20), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(360) Schedule 1, item 43, page 130 (lines 2 and 3), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(361) Schedule 1, item 43, page 130 (lines 11 and 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(362) Schedule 1, item 43, page 130 (line 21), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(363) Schedule 1, item 43, page 130 (line 28 and 29), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(364) Schedule 1, item 43, page 131 (line 18), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(365) Schedule 1, item 43, page 132 (line 1), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(366) Schedule 1, item 43, page 132 (line 3), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(367) Schedule 1, item 43, page 132 (lines 6 and 7), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(368) Schedule 1, item 43, page 132 (lines 9 and 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(369) Schedule 1, item 43, page 132 (line 14), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(370) Schedule 1, item 43, page 133 (line 6), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(371) Schedule 1, item 43, page 133 (line 24), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(372) Schedule 1, item 43, page 133 (line 26), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(373) Schedule 1, item 43, page 133 (lines 29 and 30), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(374) Schedule 1, item 43, page 133 (lines 32 and 33), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(375) Schedule 1, item 43, page 134 (line 2), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(376) Schedule 1, item 43, page 135 (lines 1 and 2), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(377) Schedule 1, item 43, page 135 (line 30), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(378) Schedule 1, item 43, page 136 (lines 1 and 2), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(379) Schedule 1, item 43, page 136 (line 7), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(380) Schedule 1, item 43, page 137 (line 3), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(381) Schedule 1, item 43, page 137 (lines 7 and 8), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(382) Schedule 1, item 43, page 137 (line 13), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(383) Schedule 1, item 43, page 138 (lines 14 and 15), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(384) Schedule 1, item 43, page 138 (line 21), omit "Designated communications provider", substitute "Prescribed communications provider".
(385) Schedule 1, item 43, page 138 (lines 23 and 24), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(386) Schedule 1, item 43, page 139 (line 3), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(387) Schedule 1, item 43, page 139 (line 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(388) Schedule 1, item 43, page 139 (lines 29 and 30), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(389) Schedule 1, item 43, page 140 (line 2), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(390) Schedule 1, item 43, page 140 (lines 21 and 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(391) Schedule 1, item 43, page 140 (lines 24 and 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(392) Schedule 1, item 43, page 140 (line 26), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(393) Schedule 1, item 43, page 140 (line 27 and 28), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(394) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (line 1), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(395) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (line 4), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(396) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (lines 5 and 6), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(397) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (line 7), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(398) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (lines 7 and 8), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(399) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (line 9), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(400) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (line 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(401) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (lines 15 and 16), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(402) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (line 17), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(403) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (line 19), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(404) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (line 22), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(405) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (lines 24 and 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(406) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (line 26), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(407) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (lines 28 and 29), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(408) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (lines 32 and 33), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(409) Schedule 1, item 43, page 141 (lines 36 and 37), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(410) Schedule 1, item 43, page 143 (line 14), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(411) Schedule 1, item 43, page 145 (lines 26 and 27), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(412) Schedule 1, item 43, page 145 (lines 31 and 32), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(413) Schedule 1, item 43, page 146 (lines 7 and 8), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(414) Schedule 1, item 43, page 146 (line 19), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(415) Schedule 1, item 43, page 146 (line 27), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(416) Schedule 1, item 43, page 147 (line 4), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(417) Schedule 1, item 43, page 150 (line 14), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(418) Schedule 1, item 43, page 150 (line 20), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(419) Schedule 1, item 43, page 151 (line 3), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(420) Schedule 1, item 43, page 151 (line 5), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(421) Schedule 1, item 43, page 153 (line 28), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(422) Schedule 1, item 43, page 153 (lines 30 and 31), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(423) Schedule 1, item 43, page 153 (line 32), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(424) Schedule 1, item 43, page 153 (line 36), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(425) Schedule 1, item 43, page 155 (after line 3), after paragraph 135(1) (b), insert:
(ba) a copy of each written request that the Attorney‑General consent orally to the making of an application under Part 4 of this Schedule for an international production order;
(bb) a copy of each written consent by the Attorney‑General to the making of an application under Part 4 of this Schedule for an international production order;
(bc) a copy of each report given to the Attorney‑General under subclause 83(9) or 92(9);
(bd) a copy of each document of a kind specified in a written agreement between the Director‑General of Security and the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security;
(426) Schedule 1, item 43, page 155 (lines 19 and 20), omit paragraph 135(2) (b), substitute:
(b) if:
(i) the document relates to an international production order that was issued under Part 4 of this Schedule; and
(ii) information was obtained in accordance with the order;
ending at the later of the following times:
(iii) when 3 years have elapsed since the document came into existence;
(iv) when the Organisation ceases to retain the information that was obtained in accordance with the order; and
(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—ending when 3 years have elapsed since the document came into existence.
(427) Schedule 1, item 43, page 155 (after line 20), at the end of clause 135, add:
(3) An agreement under paragraph (1) (bd) is not a legislative instrument.
(428) Schedule 1, item 43, page 155 (after line 28), after paragraph 136(1) (b), insert:
(ba) a record of each oral request that the Attorney‑General consent orally to the making of an application under Part 4 of this Schedule for an international production order;
(bb) a record of each oral consent by the Attorney‑General to the making of an application under Part 4 of this Schedule for an international production order;
(bc) each record of a kind specified in a written agreement between the Director‑General of Security and the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security;
(429) Schedule 1, item 43, page 156 (line 7), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(430) Schedule 1, item 43, page 156 (lines 9 and 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(431) Schedule 1, item 43, page 156 (line 11), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(432) Schedule 1, item 43, page 156 (lines 33 and 34), omit paragraph 136(2) (b), substitute:
(b) if:
(i) the record relates to an international production order that was issued under Part 4 of this Schedule; and
(ii) information was obtained in accordance with the order;
ending at the later of the following times:
(iii) when 3 years have elapsed since the record came into existence;
(iv) when the Organisation ceases to retain the information that was obtained in accordance with the order; and
(c) if paragraph (b) does not apply—ending when 3 years have elapsed since the record came into existence.
(433) Schedule 1, item 43, page 156 (after line 34), at the end of clause 136, add:
(3) An agreement under paragraph (1) (bc) is not a legislative instrument.
(434) Schedule 1, item 43, page 157 (lines 6 and 7), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(435) Schedule 1, item 43, page 157 (line 10), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(436) Schedule 1, item 43, page 157 (line 14), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(437) Schedule 1, item 43, page 157 (lines 28 and 29), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(438) Schedule 1, item 43, page 158 (line 1), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(439) Schedule 1, item 43, page 158 (lines 3 and 4), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(440) Schedule 1, item 43, page 158 (lines 8 and 9), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(441) Schedule 1, item 43, page 158 (line 18), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(442) Schedule 1, item 43, page 158 (line 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(443) Schedule 1, item 43, page 158 (line 32), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(444) Schedule 1, item 43, page 159 (line 7), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(445) Schedule 1, item 43, page 160 (line 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(446) Schedule 1, item 43, page 161 (after line 25), at the end of clause 139, add:
(3) An IGIS official may access information in the register for the purposes of the performance of a function or duty, or the exercise of a power, by the IGIS official.
(447) Schedule 1, item 43, page 161 (lines 32 and 33), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(448) Schedule 1, item 43, page 162 (lines 17 and 18), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(449) Schedule 1, item 43, page 163 (lines 3 and 4), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(450) Schedule 1, item 43, page 163 (lines 16 and 17), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(451) Schedule 1, item 43, page 173 (lines 16 and 17), omit "under the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986".
(452) Schedule 1, item 43, page 173 (lines 19 and 20), omit "under the Ombudsman Act 1976".
(453) Schedule 1, item 43, page 176 (line 6), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(454) Schedule 1, item 43, page 177 (line 25), omit "carrier", substitute "network entity".
(455) Schedule 1, item 43, page 177 (line 26), omit "carriage service provider", substitute "transmission service provider".
(456) Schedule 1, item 43, page 177 (line 27), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(457) Schedule 1, item 43, page 185 (line 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(458) Schedule 1, item 43, page 185 (line 16), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(459) Schedule 1, item 43, page 186 (lines 9 and 10), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(460) Schedule 1, item 43, page 186 (lines 12 and 13), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(461) Schedule 1, item 43, page 186 (lines 20 and 21), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(462) Schedule 1, item 43, page 187 (line 2), omit "designated communications providers", substitute "prescribed communications providers".
(463) Schedule 1, item 43, page 187 (lines 5 and 6), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(464) Schedule 1, item 43, page 187 (line 11), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(465) Schedule 1, item 43, page 187 (line 27), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(466) Schedule 1, item 43, page 187 (line 31), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(467) Schedule 1, item 43, page 188 (line 1), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(468) Schedule 1, item 43, page 188 (lines 10 and 11), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(469) Schedule 1, item 43, page 188 (line 16), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(470) Schedule 1, item 43, page 188 (line 32), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(471) Schedule 1, item 43, page 188 (line 36), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(472) Schedule 1, item 43, page 189 (line 4), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(473) Schedule 1, item 43, page 189 (lines 14 and 15), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(474) Schedule 1, item 43, page 189 (lines 22 and 23), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(475) Schedule 1, item 43, page 190 (line 5), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(476) Schedule 1, item 43, page 190 (line 13), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(477) Schedule 1, item 43, page 190 (lines 21 and 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(478) Schedule 1, item 43, page 190 (lines 29 and 30), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(479) Schedule 1, item 43, page 191 (line 12), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(480) Schedule 1, item 43, page 191 (line 20), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(481) Schedule 1, item 43, page 191 (lines 29 and 30), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(482) Schedule 1, item 43, page 191 (lines 35 and 36), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(483) Schedule 1, item 43, page 191 (line 37), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(484) Schedule 1, item 43, page 192 (line 18), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(485) Schedule 1, item 43, page 192 (line 25), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(486) Schedule 1, item 43, page 192 (lines 33 and 34), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(487) Schedule 1, item 43, page 193 (lines 1 and 2), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(488) Schedule 1, item 43, page 193 (line 3), omit "carriage service", substitute "transmission service".
(489) Schedule 1, item 43, page 193 (line 21), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(490) Schedule 1, item 43, page 193 (line 28), omit "carriage services", substitute "transmission services".
(491) Schedule 1, item 43, page 197 (lines 19 and 20), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(492) Schedule 1, item 43, page 197 (line 22), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(493) Schedule 1, item 43, page 197 (lines 24 and 25), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(494) Schedule 1, item 43, page 197 (lines 26 and 27), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(495) Schedule 1, item 43, page 198 (lines 11 and 12), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(496) Schedule 1, item 43, page 198 (lines 26 and 27), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(497) Schedule 1, item 43, page 203 (line 29), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(498) Schedule 1, item 43, page 203 (lines 33 and 34), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(499) Schedule 1, item 43, page 204 (line 5), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
(500) Schedule 1, item 43, page 209 (line 8), before "If", insert "(1)".
(501) Schedule 1, item 43, page 209 (after line 19), at the end of clause 182, add:
(2) For the purposes of subclause (1), disregard an amendment of an agreement unless:
(a) a copy of the English text of the amendment is set out in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph 3(1) (d) or (3) (d); and
(b) the amendment has entered into force for Australia.
(502) Schedule 1, item 43, page 209 (line 30), omit "designated communications provider", substitute "prescribed communications provider".
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Third Reading
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (20:12): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (20:13): I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 20 : 13
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Robert: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security, family assistance and paid parental leave, and for related purposes. (Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Waiting Periods for New Migrants) Bill 2021)
Mr Sukkar: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to financial services, and for related purposes. (Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response—Better Advice) Bill 2021)
Mr Sukkar: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to taxation, deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Corporations Amendment (Corporate Insolvency Reforms) Act 2020, make miscellaneous and technical amendments of the law in the Treasury portfolio, and for related purposes. (Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021)
Mr Tudge: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, and for other purposes. (Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Cost Recovery and Other Measures) Bill 2021)
Mr Tudge: To present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance, and for related purposes. (Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Subsidy) Bill 2021)
Mr T. R. Wilson: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that the Government is committed to supporting young Australians back into jobs and training;
(2) further notes that youth unemployment rates are at the lowest in 12 years; and
(3) recognises that the Government is backing young Australians by creating more jobs and rebuilding the economy to guarantee our coronavirus pandemic recovery.
Mr Vasta: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that the Government's support for child care helped Australian families during the height of the coronavirus pandemic and continues to support families as our economy grows;
(2) further notes that the latest data shows more than $3 billion has been provided through the pandemic to keep services viable, staff in work and children in care;
(3) recognises that women's workforce participation has reached a record high of 61.8 per cent; and
(4) further recognises that the Government is investing more than $10.3 billion in the child care system this year, helping more than 1.2 million families.
Mr Young: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that the Government is investing in the education of Australian children, to boost standards and return Australia to the top group of education nations in the world;
(2) further notes that the Government is investing record funding in schools, growing from $17.5 billion to $32.7 billion in 2029;
(3) recognises that government schools will be the biggest beneficiaries of this investment; and
(4) further recognises that funding for government schools has increased by 55 per cent over the last five years.
Dr Webster: To move—That this House:
(1) recognises the Government's commitment to ensuring there is a strong, skilled and sustainable National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) workforce by launching the NDIS National Workforce Plan;
(2) acknowledges that the disability workforce will require an additional 83,000 workers over the next few years to strengthen the responsiveness, quality and capability of the NDIS workforce and complements other Government reforms to build a simpler, fairer, faster and more flexible NDIS; and
(3) recognises the Government's 2021-22 budget investment of $12.3 million in the Care and Support Workforce Package over the next two years to cut red tape and promote regulatory alignment across the aged care, disability and veterans' care sectors.
Ms Bell: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that the Government is securing Australia's recovery by investing in essential services such as education;
(2) further notes that the Government is investing a record $24.8 billion for all Australian schools next year;
(3) recognises that the Government is investing more than $10 billion in childcare; and
(4) further recognises that the Government is providing more than $19 billion to universities, enabling more Australians to get a university education than ever before.
Mr T. R. Wilson: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Australia is continuing to display international leadership on the issue of HIV/AIDS by co‑facilitating the United Nations General Assembly 2021 High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS;
(b) this meeting took place from the 8 to 10 June and covered the progress which had been made in reducing the impact of HIV since the last high-level meeting in 2016;
(c) the meeting coincided with a meeting of public health and political leaders in Australia on the 17 June to discuss Agenda 2025—ending HIV transmission in Australia;
(d) testing and treatment services combined with successful leadership from governments and civil society mean that progression from HIV to AIDS is now relatively rare in Australia;
(e) action is still needed to address rising HIV transmission among First Nations, trans and gender diverse people, and other emerging high-risk population groups;
(f) gay and bisexual men continue to bear the burden of Australia's HIV epidemic and ongoing health education among this population group is needed, and
(g) further bipartisan political action and leadership is required to meet our national target of ending HIV transmission in Australia; and
(2) recognises and acknowledges:
(a) the Agenda 2025: Ending HIV transmission in Australia strategy outlines the commitments needed to make Australia one of the first countries to eliminate HIV;
(b) the journey that people have made through their diagnosis, treatment and experiences of living with HIV;
(c) the tremendous efforts of peer educators, healthcare professionals, researchers and scientists in developing treatment and prevention regimes that have improved the lives of people living with HIV;
(d) the success of a bipartisan approach in Australia's health response; and
(e) the tireless community advocates, civil society organisations and support groups that actively tackle stigma associated with HIV.
Mr T. R. Wilson: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) a number of Australian businesses have been impacted by cyber attacks including by ransomware in 2021; and
(b) ransomware is a common and dangerous type of malware employed by cyber criminals that can affect both individuals and organisations, and cause severe damage to reputation, and business bottom lines; and
(2) records its concern at the impact and frequency of cyber attacks on Australian individuals and businesses;
(3) notes the significant investment by the Government of $15 billion in cyber and defence capabilities, including $1.35 billion through the Australian Signals Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre, to keep Australians safe online;
(4) recognises the important work done by ACSC in providing advice and technical support to individuals and businesses affected by cyber incidents;
(5) urges all Australians to implement good cyber hygiene measures across their home and business networks; and
(6) encourages all Australians to visit cyber.gov.au and take the steps to protect themselves, their businesses, their families and Australia's digital sovereignty.
Mr Goodenough: To move—That this House:
(1) notes with concern the long standing religious persecution of members of the Baha'i Faith in Iran;
(2) expresses alarm at the raids on Baha'i homes and businesses and the increase in court cases against Baha'is since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic;
(3) further calls on the Iranian Government to ensure that Baha'is enjoy the same rights as other citizens and that their belief and practice are not criminalised;
(4) supports the 16 December 2020 resolution of the United Nations General Assembly which called on the Islamic Republic of Iran to uphold the human rights of all its citizens;
(5) condemns the recent Iranian court judgments upholding the confiscation of homes and lands belonging to 27 Baha'is in the village of Ivel; and
(6) calls on the Iranian judicial authorities to ensure that these lands and homes are restored to their rightful owners, and that no other Baha'i citizens have their properties confiscated due to their religion.
Mr Young: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that the Government's Job-ready Graduates Package is getting more Australians into the degrees that will get them the skills and qualifications to get a job;
(2) further notes that the latest data shows there are more Australians studying at university than ever before;
(3) recognises that the largest increases in new enrolments are for courses made cheaper by the Job-ready Graduates Package; and
(4) notes that the Government is providing a record $20 billion investment in the higher education sector in 2021.
Mr T. R. Wilson: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that the 2021-22 budget continues to support significant reforms in Australia's onshore waste and recycling industries, including:
(a) $67 million to support new food and garden organic waste initiatives that assist Australian households to better understand what can be recycled, divert the amount of waste going to landfill and produce top quality compost;
(b) an additional $5.9 million to expand the existing National Product Stewardship Investment Fund to invest in innovative industry-led solutions to improve the way products are designed, reused, repaired and recycled; and
(c) $5 million to help small businesses to adopt the Australasian Recycling Label to help make recycling easier and to boost recycling rates;
(2) further notes that the $190 million Recycling Modernisation Fund is leveraging more than $600 million of investment in state-of-the-art recycling infrastructure to sort, process and remanufacture waste materials onshore; and
(3) congratulates the Government for its leadership in driving a once in a generation $1 billion transformation of our waste and recycling industries that will reduce Australia's waste footprint by 10 million tonnes, protect our environment and create more than 10,000 jobs over the next decade.
Mr Pasin: To move—That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on average, 2.5 million containers, 122,000 air and sea vessels, 22 million passengers and 144 million mail items arrive in Australia each year;
(b) around 35,000 pest and disease border detections are recorded across biosecurity regulated pathways each year; and
(c) the global and regional spread of pests and diseases is accelerating; and
(2) further notes that:
(a) Australia has one of the most robust and effective biosecurity systems in the world, which is essential to keeping our nation safe from exotic pests and diseases;
(b) a strong biosecurity system protects and empowers Australia's reputation as a clean and green producer of food and fibre, ensuring primary producers can maintain their production levels and attain premiums for their product in our international export markets; and
(c) the agricultural industry's ambitious goal of $100 billion by 2030 is only attainable through substantial continued investment in biosecurity; and
(3) acknowledges and welcomes the Government's history of investment in biosecurity, which saw investment in biosecurity and export services increase from $630 million in 2014-15 to a record expected total of $910 million in 2020-21; and
(4) welcomes the additional $400 million in new funding announced through the 2021-22 budget to further expand biosecurity systems and safeguard Australian agriculture and our environment from exotic pests and diseases.
Mr T. R. Wilson: To move—That this House:
(1) recognises the critical work of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) in safeguarding Australia's security and national interests;
(2) notes that ASIO Director-General Mr Mike Burgess recently observed that 'Australia's threat environment is complex, challenging and changing';
(3) commends the Government for providing $1.3 billion over ten years in the 2021-22 budget to help further improve ASIO's capabilities; and
(4) thanks the men and women who work in ASIO and our other national security agencies for their dedication to keeping Australians safe from a range of threats and to protecting our national sovereignty.
Mr Simmonds: To move—That this House:
(1) acknowledges the Government's commitment to stopping importation of childlike sex dolls into Australia with the 2019 introduction of the world-leading measure of a standalone offence into the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 for possessing a childlike sex doll, with offenders facing imprisonment of up to 15 years;
(2) further acknowledges introduction under the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Act 2020 of mandatory minimum sentences for certain Commonwealth child sex offences committed on or after 23 June 2020, resulting in a person convicted under the Criminal Code for possessing a childlike sex doll now facing a mandatory minimum sentence of four years' imprisonment in situations where it is the person's 'second-strike' child sexual abuse offence; and
(3) congratulates the Australian Border Force (ABF) in seizing a total of 82 consignments from 1 July 2020 to 31 May 2021 that contained in total 188 childlike sex dolls and or parts which are prohibited under the Customs Act 1901, allowing the ABF to seize these objects at the first point of detection at Australia's border; and
(4) notes the total number of seized childlike sex dolls and or parts has increased compared to 2019‑20, where the ABF seized a total of 86 consignments that contained 145 childlike sex dolls and or parts.
Mr van Manen: To move—That this House:
(1) notes the Government's ongoing commitment to improving road safety through the establishment of the Road Safety Program (RSP);
(2) recognises that the RSP supports the fast roll out of lifesaving road safety treatments on rural and regional roads and greater protection for vulnerable road users, like cyclists and pedestrians, in urban areas;
(3) commends the Government for its funding in the recent budget to provide $3 billion over three years from 2020-21; and
(4) acknowledges the 'use it or lose it' provision as part of the funding, requiring states and territories to use their funding within each six month tranche in order to receive their full allocation of funding for the next tranche, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Mr van Manen: To move—That this House:
(1) notes the vital nature of Black Spot Program (BSP) funding in reducing death and serious injury on Australian roads;
(2) recognises that BSP projects target those road locations where crashes are occurring, which are a major cost to Australians every year;
(3) commends the Government for its extensive commitment to road safety through infrastructure investment, by providing $1.1 billion to the BSP from 2013-14 to 2023-24, with an ongoing commitment of $110 million each year following; and
(4) acknowledges research from the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics that the Government's BSP reduces death and serious injury from crashes by 30 per cent, on average at treated sites.
Mr Simmonds: To move—That this House notes that:
(1) membership of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) Cadets:
(a) gives young people the opportunity to be members of a team, develop their skills as leaders and develop an individual's capacity to contribute to society; and
(b) fosters an interest in Defence Force careers, and is important in developing ongoing support for Defence; and
(2) ADF Cadets contribute greatly to the community and Australian society.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Goodenough) took the chair at 09:59.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Medicare
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (10:00): Access to affordable health care for all is one of the founding principles of Medicare. The promise that that green Medicare card would give all Australians access to health care when they need it is a promise that we must uphold.
During a global pandemic, the government has snuck in almost a thousand changes to the Medicare Benefits Schedule. These changes would radically alter the costs of hundreds of orthopaedic, cardiac and general surgery items. The Prime Minister's plan to cut Medicare rebates means that patients will have to choose between cancelling life-changing surgeries and being hit with huge bills they were not given notice about. This is no surprise, because, after eight years of this government—who have been planning over and over again, in different ways, to cut Medicare—this is just the newest iteration. The government has released very little information about the latest changes, creating confusion for patients and doctors alike. There is no certainty about the cost of their medical procedures after 1 July this year. That is only a few days away.
We've seen the Australian Medical Association president express his concerns about the confusion created by these latest cuts. Earlier this month, the AMA said that they were 'concerned that the private healthcare sector—including health funds, hospitals, doctors and patients—will not be ready' for 1 July. Of course, this will just further exacerbate the impact that growing out-of-pocket costs for medical treatment are having on my community. Under this Liberal-National government, we've seen increasing out-of-pocket costs for patients. In my electorate of Kingston, in the southern suburbs of Adelaide, the average out-of-pocket cost for seeing a GP as part of a non-referred attendance has increased by 26 per cent under this Liberal government. This is leaving patients, on average, $32.45 out of pocket. That almost equals the Medicare rebate itself. Far from making a small out-of-pocket contribution, constituents in my electorate are significantly out of pocket, and this is not good enough. The average out-of-pocket cost of seeing a specialist has also soared for those in the southern suburbs. It has increased by a massive 48 per cent under the Liberal-National government, leaving patients, on average, $69.70 out of pocket to see a specialist. This just isn't good enough.
I said in my first speech that health care should be determined by your Medicare card, not your credit card. Your credit card should not determine the level of health care you get. It is now time for this whole parliament to stand up for Medicare, stand up for universal health care and ensure that people with healthcare needs get support when they need it.
Wide Bay Electorate: Stronger Communities Program
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (10:03): I rise today to congratulate Gympie Medical Transport, the Noosa Dolphins rugby club and the Maryborough Sporting Car Club on their successful applications to the Stronger Communities Program. As a regional representative, I know how much of a difference these grants make in Wide Bay's smaller communities.
Gympie Medical Transport will receive $14,000 through the Stronger Communities Program, but their value to the community is far greater. This funding has helped them purchase a third vehicle so volunteers can take more people to their important medical appointments in Noosa, the Sunshine Coast or Brisbane—people who might otherwise miss out on a specialist appointment or be forced to pay punishing amounts for travel. Gympie Medical Transport is 100 per cent volunteer run and is filling a much-needed role in the region. I congratulate Bev Goodall and her committee on their hard work and their success.
For the 500 players associated with the Noosa Dolphins rugby club, their $9,500 grant has been used to purchase essential gear, including tackling pads, junior and senior rugby balls and scrum-practising equipment. This support will help players to train and reach their best, whether they're six or 60.
For the motor sports fan, a $15,000 grant for the Maryborough Sporting Car Club will be used for shade structures to cover the junior competitor area at the Maryborough Speedway. Clubs like this provide a community network, and this will provide a sun-safe space for competitors and spectators so more people can enjoy events like races, monster trucks and the World Series Sprintcars.
Men's sheds throughout Australia also play a vital role in connecting our regional communities, and their work has never been as important as in the past 18 months as we recover from the isolation inflicted by COVID-19. Funding through the National Shed Development Program is helping the Maryborough and Gympie men's sheds to bring their communities together, with new computers and IT equipment. These two grants, of $2,070 and $1,900 respectively, will make it easier for the men's shed members to reduce social isolation, stay connected with the broader community, create opportunities for new training and keep accurate records.
Volunteers and veterans groups and sporting services organisations are at the heart of Wide Bay's community, and I'll keep working hard to ensure local groups can access the funding they need to keep our communities strong.
Fowler Electorate: Multiculturalism
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (10:06): Earlier this month I had the privilege of attending the opening of the People's Globe in my electorate, a fantastic initiative by the Fairfield City Council led by Mayor Frank Carbone. The People's Globe is a 1.6-metre kugel ball—a granite sphere which is positioned on a water basin—located in the main entrance of Fairfield Showground. As part of this display, a nearby wall of ceramic tiles has been installed, bearing the flags representing the countries of origin of Fairfield's residents and showing the direction and distances to those places.
It is only fitting that the Fairfield Showground was chosen as the location of this display, as it is the centre of many multicultural events that take place in my community, such as the Vietnamese Tet festival, the Assyrian new year, Oktoberfest and the annual Eid festival, to name a few. I've often had the opportunity to speak in this place about representing one of the most multicultural communities in our country. The People's Globe delivers us a testament to the diversity and success of my community in Western Sydney. It honours the First Nations people and pays tribute to their custodianship, particularly the Cabrogal people of the Dharug nation, who are the traditional owners of the land we now call Fairfield.
The People's Globe is an important monument recognising and celebrating the very diverse immigration that we have had, the vibrancy of our communities, and all the people who have come across the seas to call Australia home. Many of the people in these migrant communities have fled their homes as refugees with very little or have migrated to seek opportunities for a better life in another country, but all have made a significant and invaluable contribution to our way of life and to our community. They have paved the way for future generations. The People's Globe pays tribute to the heritage of more than 104 communities in my electorate and will serve as a constant reminder of the many people and communities who have contributed so much to modern-day Fairfield as we know it—and, indeed, to our nation. Our diversity makes us a better place. Well done, Fairfield City Council; you have delivered us something that we can be truly proud of. The People's Globe celebrates our diversity very well.
Capricornia Electorate: Health Care
Capricornia Electorate: Yeppoon Aquatic Centre
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Assistant Minister for Children and Families and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (10:08): I take this opportunity to talk about an important project in my electorate of Capricornia which will deliver a much-needed hospice service in Central Queensland. I visited Fitzroy Community Hospice with the member for Riverina last weekend, and it was fantastic to meet with the board to hear more about their plans. The hospice intends to provide end-of-life and respite care on site in a 12-bed facility. Many Australians would prefer to be cared for and die comfortably at home. Unfortunately, while 70 per cent of people say this is their preference, each year less than 10 per cent of Australians who die do so at home. A key component of the service will be community outreach care by palliative care nurses. This will support and enable patients to stay at home if that is their wish. Holistic support services include bereavement support, which will be provided for patients, families and carers. It is envisaged that all services will be free of charge and available to people of all ages with an advanced life-limiting condition, not just those with cancer.
More access to palliative care and health improvements for the region is something I have been fighting for for a long time. Access to community based palliative care is limited in the Central Queensland region, and all eight hospices in our state are in South-East Queensland. All Australians deserve to get the highest quality care in their own community. For the people of Central Queensland the prospect of a new hospice means patients have more opportunities to receive the best possible care and be close to their family. When the hospice is up and running, I'm sure the staff at the Fitzroy Community Hospice will support and guide patients and their families through the most difficult of times and ensure each and every person is treated with dignity and grace. I commend the Fitzroy Community Hospice board and all their efforts in seeing this project come to fruition.
It was also wonderful to visit the Yeppoon Aquatic Centre with the member for Riverina on his visit to Capricornia. I fought hard for the Yeppoon Aquatic Centre to receive federal funding in this year's budget, and I was very fortunate to announce back in May that they would be receiving $13 million to upgrade the centre. The upgrades include a 50-metre 10-lane competition pool, a new amenities administration area, a new health and wellness centre, a new community hall, disability access facilities, new entry pathways and additional onsite car parking. Upgrades to a facility like the Yeppoon Aquatic Centre are so vital for young families, schools and the community. This is the same facility where many children, including my daughters, learned to swim, and that tradition will continue for future generations. As the Capricorn Coast community continues to grow, this complex will further set the region up to foster future swimming talent from the local area.
Petition: Community Sport Infrastructure Grant Program
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (10:11): When the Australian National Audit Office released its pretty damning report into the community sports grants program 18 months ago, finding evidence of distribution bias by the federal government, I was not surprised. But I was angry for those who unfairly missed out, and I was deeply concerned about the consequences. Sadly, my prediction that the government would pull back from sporting infrastructure has come true. There was no $100 million community sports grants program or equivalent in the budget this year, and that, I think, is a great shame.
Many of the sporting facilities in my region are community owned, so for decades they have struggled to source funding to upgrade their infrastructure. I have been to facilities that have buckets under the sink to catch water. Mayo was a safe seat for many decades and didn't attract as many election promises as other electorates. That changed when I was elected, and I have unashamedly advocated for my community. The government has also unashamedly made electoral promises to win back my community, and that is the reality of politics. But this goes to the heart of the problem with the sports rorts scandal.
Election promises of future funding for marginal seats is one thing; tinkering with grant schemes that you advertise as merit based does not wash with the Australian people. Club volunteers put in thousands of hours of work, having the mistaken belief that they would be assessed on merit. Clubs accept that they might miss out, but to find out from the government that you scored quite highly but then you were overruled by the government so they could improve their re-election chances just makes people's blood boil.
A number of the highest-ranking applications received, revealed in a spreadsheet leaked to the ABC in early 2020, were from my electorate, including the applications of the Cherry Gardens Ironbank Recreation Ground, Coromandel Valley Ramblers Cricket Club, Echunga Netball Club, McLaren Vale Football Club, Adelaide Hills Hawks Football Club, Lobethal Tennis Club and, of course, down at Goolwa, the Goolwa District Pony Club. The Goolwa District Pony Club asked for $40,000 to replace an ageing hut. They weren't reaching for the stars; however, they did expect to be treated fairly, and that didn't happen. Their president, Dr James Meyer, was so angry he organised a parliamentary petition calling on the government to immediately fund all the projects assessed as meritorious and recommended by Sport Australia that were dismissed in the final ministerial funding decisions. I echo their call, and I now present this petition to the parliament.
The petition read as follows—
The 'Sports Rorts' saga surrounding the 2018 Community Sport Infrastructure grant program lead to the Senate Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants. The final report of the Committee has been released with nine sensible recommendations. The recommendations outlined improved communication, transparency & integrity when Government bodies are administering grants. These recommendations were made in response to findings of "overt and organised practice by the Government of inappropriately using Commonwealth grants for partisan political purposes, and a failure to act transparently and accountably in relation to the expenditure of public monies". The recommendations also included that "the Australian Government immediately fund in full all projects that were assessed as meritorious and recommended by Sport Australia, but dismissed in the final ministerial funding decisions". This is vitally important to restore trust and faith in the Australian Government, by the not-for-profit organisations who rely on these programs, to improve the facilities they offer to their members and their communities.
We therefore ask the House to immediately fund in full all projects that were assessed as meritorious and recommended by Sport Australia (from the 2018 Community Sport Infrastructure grant program), but dismissed in the final ministerial funding decisions.
from 325 citizens
Petition received.
Wentworth Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (10:14): I rise to acknowledge and recognise the exceptional individuals within my own community of Wentworth whose meaningful service to others and Australia was recognised in the Queen's Birthday honours list. Appointed as officers of the Order of Australia for their distinguished service to the community were Mr Peter Ivany and Mr Cameron Kerr. Mr Ivany was recognised for his support for the arts, sports, natural science and not-for-profit organisations and Mr Kerr was recognised for his dedicated service to wildlife conservation, animal science and zoological associations.
A number of individuals were also appointed as members of the Order of Australia in the Queen's Birthday honours list in the general division. They include Mr Greg Shand for significant service to the Jewish community and charitable institutions; Mr Simon Bouda for significant service to television and print media; Ms Shayne Brown for significant service to medicine and orthoptics; Professor John Connell for his service to tertiary education; Dr Bronwyn Evans for service to engineering and medical technology; Mr Mark Miller for significant service to visual and performing arts; Professor Robyn Richmond for significant service to tertiary and medical education and public health; Associate Professor Gary Sholler for his significant service to paediatric medicine and tertiary education; Mr Colin Tate, who many here would know, for his service to charitable initiatives; Ms Charlotte Vidor for her significant service to the multicultural community and to urban planning; and Ms Leanne Zalapa for her significant service to the Prince of Wales Hospital Foundation and to health education more broadly.
There are also a number of individuals in my community of Wentworth who were awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia, or OAM. They include Mr Stephen Cordell, Mr Philip Feinstein, Mr Brian Ladd, Dr Alexander Levendel, Dr Michael Newman, Mr Adrian Skurnik, Mr Lee Stockley, Mr Malcolm Young and Mr Morri Young. These people have given service across a range of fields, including medicine and the arts, and to our veterans and our local communities. Finally, I wish to congratulate Mr Jason Elderhurst, who was awarded the Public Service Medal for his outstanding contribution to building services within the New South Wales public service.
My community of Wentworth, like many communities around the country, is proud and honoured to have such dedicated individuals who give meaningfully of their time, expertise and their family life often enough in order to serve worthy causes and to contribute to the community in meaningful ways. These people are the heart of the social capital that we possess here in Australia. They make our communities stronger and more lively. They look after some of the most vulnerable individuals. They are what makes Australia great. On behalf of the people of Wentworth, I thank and acknowledge all of them.
Perth Electorate
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (10:17): The electorate of Perth will soon change. Following a redistribution we are going to welcome some other great Western Australian suburbs and Western Australian residents to the Perth electorate. Not everyone in this place welcomes a redistribution, but I welcome the new residents of the Perth electorate. These are iconic Western Australian suburbs that continue to reside on Boorloo, Whadjuk and Noongar land.
I welcome Osborne Park, a suburb named after William Osborne, who was elected to the Perth Road Board in 1875. William Osborne was a butcher who owned land in the Wanneroo area. When it was first settled, Osborne Park had an emerging agricultural tradition and many Italian and Chinese migrants. It has the swamplands of Lake Monger, which is also known as Galup, and Herdsman Lake, which is known as Njookenbooro, meaning that freshwater was abundant. Today while diverse communities still exist, Osborne Park is known for its many commercial outlets and retains its industrial trading hub feel.
Joondanna, initially named Joondanna Heights, was settled after the Perth Road Board launched a competition to find a suitable name in 1939. The competition was won by Mrs A Curtis of Donnybrook. Today Joondanna is home to many young families. Again it's another great Western Australian suburb.
We then have Tuart Hill. It was almost named Grenville. People were concerned that it might be confused with Granville in New South Wales so the name Tuart Hill was settled upon, recognising the majestic tuart trees that grow throughout the area. Tuart Hill is still a blooming, green, leafy suburb. The community is warm and welcoming. I have been pleased to be able to doorknock throughout Tuart Hill in the month of May. We have Yokine, derived from the local Whadjuk Noongar word meaning 'dingo'. Yokine experienced a housing boom after World War II, and the area near the golf course was almost entirely developed by the 1950s. By the seventies, Yokine was practically full. Today it continues to be a beautiful and popular suburb in the northern suburbs.
These suburbs are home to great community organisations, some of which I've had the pleasure to meet, others which I look forward to meeting in coming months and years: the Main Street Co-op, the Osborne Park Cricket Club, its twin organisation the Osborne Park Bowling Club, AFL Masters WA, the Western Australian Golf Club, Maccabi Soccer Club, Exceed Triathlon Club, Osborne Autumn Club and the WA Tuart Hill branch of Retirees. This is a beautiful part of the world. I welcome everyone who lives in these suburbs that are about to join the Perth electorate following the next election. Thank you to the Electoral Commission for giving me these beautiful parts of Western Australia.
Banks Electorate: Community Groups
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention) (10:20): On 5 June I attended the Mortdale Heights Cricket Club presentation at Moore Reserve in Hurstville Grove. Mortdale Heights Cricket Club is one of the very strongest cricket clubs anywhere in the Banks electorate. It was great to see Matt Boland, the president; Alexia O'Sullivan, the secretary; and all the team at Mortdale Heights Cricket Club. Every year, they have their presentation in this great spot down in Moore Reserve in Hurstville Grove. It's a beautiful place and a great location for the kids and families to get together to acknowledge the players who have done well during the year. It really is a wonderful community club.
It was founded in 1957, one of the oldest clubs in the St George district. It has a very strong junior club and really strong and increasing participation from girls, which is great to see. To Matt and everyone at Mortdale Heights Cricket Club: congratulations on a another great year.
The Oatley 101 Society of Artists is a tremendously vibrant and active group based, of course, in the old scout hall at Oatley West. The Oatley 101 Society of Artists comes together very regularly to do art—and very-high-quality art, I must say. It has more than 200 members and was founded back in 1997. They do portraits, outdoor classes, social painters classes and a number of big exhibitions each year down there in the old scout hall. I want to congratulate Jill Hamilton, the president; Shirley Kane, the vice-president; Robyn Riley, the secretary; and Freda Surgenor, the treasurer. Thank you so much for everything you do, Oatley 101; it is a tremendous community of artists and adding a lot to our area.
We're fortunate in the Banks electorate to have a very strong and thriving Probus community. I think there are probably more than 1,000 people who attend Probus clubs within the Banks electorate. One of the strongest clubs is Padstow Probus, which meets down at Padstow RSL and was founded, of course, back in 2004. It meets on the first Friday of each month. One of the activities that Padstow Probus typically does is organise a lot of trips—interstate trips, overseas trips—but, unfortunately, that's of course been curtailed due to COVID-19. But lots of other good activities are happening in the local area, in particular in recent months when the club has been able to reconvene. To Bob Foxley, the president, and the entire team at Padstow Probus: congratulations on everything that's happening down there. It was really good to visit recently.
Moreton Electorate: Moorooka Sports and Community Club
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (10:23): The Moorooka bowls club is a well-known facility in my electorate. In May 2019, after half a century of entertaining fans, providing a social hub for the community and training elite players, the Moorooka bowls club was, sadly, forced to close its doors. Boomers don't bowl as much. The story of a bowls club closing down is a common story across Australia. Some lawn bowls places are thriving in some suburbs, but some suburbs struggle to keep up with the interests of the changing demographics. You'd think that I would be standing here two years on with some good news to share; unfortunately, I am not. Since the closure, the Moorooka bowls club has become the subject of many complaints from my community—complaints about the overgrown grounds and the absence of any maintenance. This is a club that once served as a host for the 1982 Commonwealth Games lawn bowls, an event of immense pride to many associated with the club. In fact, Queen Elizabeth visited, and there is a plaque on the wall commemorating that.
Just a few months ago it was reported that the Brisbane City Council had made an agreement with the new lessee for the club—a not-for-profit group, keen to open the facilities up to local groups and residents. But to get the club up and running and to turn it into a viable, active community hub for everyone to enjoy and make use of takes a lot of effort. I'm disappointed to report that there has been limited progress made because the LNP Brisbane City Council has refused to take responsibility for handing over a facility in good condition. The Liberal Lord Mayor is expecting a not-for-profit group to take on the cost of updating the facility at a cost of between $500,000 and $600,000.
But let me point out that, in a neighbouring LNP ward, the Runcorn Ward, they were happy to spend over $1 million to give the Sunnybank bowls club a renovation after it became vacant. This really is a tale of two wards, because it seems that, in a Labor ward, the council expect you to take on a facility with leaking pipes, rotting floorboards, an outdated kitchen and non-accessible toilets, in addition to a range of other issues requiring maintenance, both internally and externally, and to find, magically, $600,000 to pay for it! The Moorooka bowls club is a Brisbane City Council community facility that is owned by residents—by ratepayers. It should be maintained by the BCC. It's unreasonable to expect a not-for-profit community group to repair and renovate council facilities. It's also unreasonable to upgrade facilities in some wards but not in others. Certainly the Moorooka Ward and the Tennyson Ward seem to be being deliberately neglected by the Liberal Lord Mayor.
Just a few weeks ago, Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner's conservative team voted against funding the renovation of this historic Moorooka bowls club, a great facility. It seems like they would play politics and see this important community facility remain unused and idle and, potentially, dangerous. Shame on the Liberal Lord Mayor! I did expect better from Lord Mayor Adrian Schrinner.
Brisbane Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours
Mr EVANS (Brisbane—Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) (10:26): In times like these, it's especially important that we pause to acknowledge some of the amazing people who have helped make our local community the very best it can be. The following Brisbane residents have been recognised in the Queen's Birthday Australian honours awards.
Firstly, Brisbane icon Philip Bacon has been made an Officer of the Order of Australia for his distinguished service to the arts, his unwavering support for young artists and service to social and cultural organisations. Emeritus Professor David Carter has been awarded a Member of the Order of Australia for service to tertiary education and to cultural and literary studies. Also becoming a Member of the Order of Australia are Gregory Chamberlin, for service to the print media through a plethora of editorial roles; Roger Dooley, for service to community health, psychology and professional societies; Dr Barry O'Loughlin, for service to medicine and to medical administration; Dr Erica McWilliam, for service to education, pedagogy and gender equity; His Honour Kerry O'Brien, for service to the law and to the judiciary; Wayne Kratzmann, for service to the visual and performing arts and to education; and Harvey Lister, for service to the arts, tourism and sport and for his great work with venue management and events industries in Australia and abroad.
My dear friend the indomitable Denise Schellbach has been awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her long-term service to an extensive list of community organisations. Similarly, Alison Sherry was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for her devoted service to many great local community groups. Also receiving the Medal of the Order of Australia were Penelope Gordon, for her involvement in social welfare organisations; Andrew Craig, for his service to veterans and their families; Dr Amanda Dines, for service to medicine; Dr Philip Vardy, for service to sailing; Mr Medy Hassan, for service to the building and construction industry; Graham Corney, for service to education governance; and Matthew Hickey, for service to music and the law.
Other very notable awardees this year include James Huggett, who received a Public Service Medal for outstanding service to maritime safety; Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Anderson, who received the Conspicuous Service Cross for outstanding achievement as the Commanding Officer of the 1st Signal Regiment; and The Most Reverend Dr Phillip Aspinall, who is now a Companion of the Order of Australia for his eminent service to the Anglican Church, to the development of ecumenical relationships and professional standards and his commitment to social justice.
On behalf of the people of Brisbane, I'd like to express my sincere gratitude to these very deserving awardees for their contributions to our community. And congratulations to all of the worthy recipients, right around Australia, of the Queen's Birthday honours.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 May 2021, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Asylum Seekers
Mr BURNS (Macnamara) (10:30): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) refugees transferred to Australia from Nauru and Papua New Guinea for medical treatment are still being held in immigration detention centres and alternative places of detention, such as hotels, in Australia;
(b) many of these individuals have now been detained for over eight years and have suffered significant psychological harm as result of their prolonged and indefinite detention;
(c) the offshore detention program will cost taxpayers $811 million alone in the 2021-22 financial year despite:
(i) the impact on the physical and mental health of detainees; and
(ii) repeated offers to resettle asylum seekers from New Zealand; and
(d) there is overwhelming community support for the fair and humane treatment of Medevac refugees, including their release from detention, as evidenced by the #TimeForAHome campaign of over 160 civil society groups and organisations; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) immediately accept New Zealand's offer to resettle 150 refugees per year;
(b) work towards resettling people languishing in indefinite detention; and
(c) move refugees transferred to Australia from Nauru and Papua New Guinea for medical treatment still being held in immigration detention centres and alternative places of detention into the community recognising that 'it's cheaper for people to be in the community than it is to be at a hotel or for us to be paying for them to be in detention and if they're demonstrated not to be a threat'.
I move this motion in my name, and I'm grateful to the member for Cooper, who will second it and who's been a champion for refugees throughout her career in this place and since her election. I'm also grateful for the support I've received from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, from my friends Kon and Jana and all of the team there. The work they do is remarkable, and I cannot imagine how difficult it has been over this last year or so. I also want to acknowledge the grandmothers and all of the people who have stood up to add their voice to ensure that Australia doesn't continue the heartless and cruel policies that we've seen under the Morrison government.
It saddens me that we're talking about the very basic dignity and a very basic level of responsibility for the welfare and health care of people who are in our care. In the past year and a half, Australians, and indeed people all around the world, have had just a taste of what it is to be locked up. That is especially true for people who are in strict quarantine—not just stay-at-home restrictions, but 14-day quarantine—either at home or in a hotel. We've heard from many of them about how isolating it is, even for a short period of time, and how difficult it is to be stuck there and how lonely it is. Well, imagine being in hotel quarantine for a year. Imagine being there after having spent years in detention. Imagine the only reason you weren't still in offshore detention is that you were sick and you couldn't get adequate medical care in that offshore detention. The government flew you to Australia not because they wanted to but because they were forced to by a law that was passed against their will. Imagine the mental and emotional trauma that would cause you, not to mention the physical trauma.
We have heard from people about just how traumatised they are. Earlier this year, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre brought two men to Canberra who had been through this entire ordeal. Thanush and Ramsiyar came to this country seeking asylum, and they spent eight years in various forms of detention. Eight years of the lives of these young men were spent locked up on Manus Island and then later in a hotel in Melbourne. While they were part of a cohort of around 100 people who were surprisingly released earlier this year, there are still over 100 medevac refugees in various forms of onshore detention in Australia, including five women. We have no idea if or when these people might be released. The government refuses to explain why some have been released into the community and others haven't. There are around 1,000 people on bridging visas with a completely uncertain future and minimal, if any, government support. There are still 230 asylum seekers stuck in offshore detention in PNG and Nauru.
How much does this cost Australian taxpayers? Over $811 million is committed in the 2021-22 budget alone. Let's be very clear about this. Even the former Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Dutton, has said:
Well it's cheaper for people to be in the community than it is to be at a hotel or for us to be paying for them to be in detention and if they're demonstrated not to be a threat … then it is cheaper for people to go out into the community …
We're talking about human beings who are not a threat to this country, who have committed no crime in seeking asylum, and yet the Morrison government is picking the most expensive and least humane option possible in keeping them in detention.
I want to acknowledge—because I have no doubt that members opposite will try to run up a scare campaign on the boats and people smugglers—Labor believes you can be strong on the borders without being weak on humanity. This government is weak on humanity. We have had an offer on the table since 2013, between Julia Gillard and John Key, to resettle 150 asylum seekers every year in New Zealand. That would have meant that there would be no-one in offshore detention in Australia. This government continues to refuse to accept that deal, yet we're still talking in this place about people who have been in detention for eight years. We can say that we won't resettle them here, but we can't just leave them in limbo. The government has failed to make any effort to accept the deals on the table or to try to negotiate others. They are just indifferent to this cruelty. We must do better for the people who are in our care. The government should accept the deals. The government should release people. We should put an end to indefinite detention.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Kearney: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (10:35): I thank the member for Macnamara for bringing this motion forward. This issue always deserves discussion. I have been here for a while—in fact, I was elected in 2007. I heard very similar speeches to that in 2007, before the government of the day decided to relax the immigration procedures. What happened after that is well known: 50,000 unauthorised arrivals and at least 1,200 dead at sea. Being in government is not easy; it requires some resolve and some view to the entire issues, not just succumbing to a feel-good position.
No-one should forget what happened after the undoing of those tougher controls by then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. I've spoken to a number of people. I had a young man approach me in the last 12 months who was in Border Force. He was on the boat that was fishing people out of the sea off of Christmas Island when that terrible tragedy occurred. About two months later he was once again involved in pulling people out of the sea; I think three died that time. He's struggling with his mental health issues, I have to tell you. He said it's a deep and binding scar on him. He has been on Comcare for some time, trying to find a way back into the workforce. I've spoken to other people who worked for defence, and they said it's bad enough pulling bodies out of the water; it's even worse when they are disintegrating. With the policy we have in place, it is seven years since we've seen a successful landing by people into Australia. It's worth saying that in 2013 the enormity of what happened had sunk in, and the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said boat arrivals will never be settled in Australia period.
I know this is a private member's motion. I'm not too sure what Labor Party policy is in that area, but, given the comments of the Leader of the Opposition position in the last week calling for the Murugappans—the Sri Lankan family who came here on a boat and have been through every process imaginable in Australia, as they've been surrounded by human rights lawyers, and at every level have been rejected as being genuine refugees—to be allowed to stay in Australia permanently, you can only presume that the Labor Party has a completely different position to what it had in 2013, and in fact we are in a revisitation of 2007, where it's okay to open the borders up and nothing will happen.
In fact, I even remember going to a church service at the time of the last election—not my local church; a church of my denomination. When the minister saw me walk in—
Sitting suspended from 10 : 39 to 10 : 52
Mr RAMSEY: In the period when the Baxter detention centre was open, a friend of mine was visiting an asylum seeker. My friend was going overseas, and he said to me, 'Would you go and visit the asylum seeker?' I said, 'Sure.' So I went and visited him. He was a very impressive young Iranian man. There is no doubt in my mind that he would have made a great Australian, but he wasn't a refugee. He did not meet the criteria. Eventually he left, and I believe he settled somewhere else in the world.
The point, as it is with all of these cases, is that the quality of the individual is not relevant to the cases that we make about border control, because every individual should be considered equal. In fact, there are probably five billion people in the world who would like to come to Australia and who would, indeed, make great Australians. But we cannot afford to open our border to five billion new Australians.
The member who moved this motion spoke about those who came to Australia under the medevac bill, which was a bill, once again, that was pushed through the parliament, backed by Labor. It proved to be exactly what we predicted it would. It was a breakthrough for doctors on these islands to sign off and get people into Australia, and then you couldn't shift them because they were surrounded by the phalanx of human rights lawyers that want to destroy our border place controls.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (10:54): I strongly support the motion moved by my colleague the member for McNamara. It is incredibly important that we keep drawing attention to the Morrison government's ongoing policy of indefinite detention and the effects it has on people seeking asylum—trauma and suffering, helplessness and hopelessness. There are people locked up in various places—the Park Hotel in Melbourne, MITA and BITA—who have been in detention for eight years. Many of them have families and children and loved ones that they haven't seen in all that time. Let's be clear: they have committed no crime. They sought safety from war and persecution. Because of the Morrison government's pig-headedness, they remain detained.
This government uses indefinite detention as a punitive policy to deter people and refuses to act on solutions to actually resettle people. And the refugees are hurting so badly. When I visited the men at the Mantra Hotel, this was plain to see. They were ill, they were fearful and they were losing hope. Right now, there are 14 asylum seekers at MITA who are on a hunger strike. They don't understand why they are locked up when—thankfully and strangely—dozens of their friends have been released. The Morrison government has an arbitrary way of releasing people, and the absence of any information from the government explaining why some are released and others not has caused further mental health harm.
When refugees are released, the Morrison government chooses to continue to punish them. Those released are on six-month bridging visas with little or no support after an initial period of funded support for three to six weeks. Their fate is unknown and their lives are in limbo with unclear processes about visa renewal or any certainty for the future. This is awful policy and Labor does not support it.
Labor has supported the Game Over campaign and called on the Morrison government to immediately accept the New Zealand resettlement deal. That way, those who are still detained on PNG and Nauru could have safe, permanent homes. We've called on the government to release refugees into the community on ongoing bridging visas. We've called on them to extend appropriate supports and safety nets to those released into the community—because, as we know, at the Morrison government cruelly cut the crucial SRSS payments. And Labor has said that we want Priya, Nades, Kopika and Tharunicaa to return to their home in Biloela. The community there loves them, supports them and wants them home. Yet the Morrison government refuses to do any of these things. They are cruel.
Labor has a very different approach than the Morrison government. We would end indefinite detention, double the refugee intake, remove temporary protection visas and SHEVs, and allow for family reunions. We'll provide all asylum seekers and refugees with appropriate settlement services so they can get jobs, get housing, see a doctor, see a lawyer and have a living wage. We have a set of policies that are far more effective and compassionate. If we could implement them, it would make a difference to thousands of people seeking asylum and refugees.
In my few remaining minutes, I would like to thank the people who work so hard in this sector to advocate for asylum seekers and refugees and work closely with me and my colleagues for a better approach: Sister Bridget, in particular; the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre; Amnesty International; the Refugee Action Collective; Rural Australians for Refugees; the Refugee Council of Australia; and so many of my constituents in Cooper who I know feel very deeply about this and who constantly seek my support to amplify their voice in support of refugees and asylum seekers in Australia.
We do not support the cruel and inhumane policy of indefinite detention. It does nothing but cause harm, pain and a sense of hopelessness when all people are looking for is safety and a home free from persecution and free from fear.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (10:59): I support this motion and I applaud the ALP for moving it. At the same time, I condemn the confected expressions of concern for asylum seekers that I hear so often in this place from the Liberal and National parties and the Labor Party. I acknowledge that there are good people in those parties and in this chamber right now who personally have very strong views in support of asylum seekers. I also acknowledge that the ALP is to be applauded for supporting the medevac legislation, which, regrettably, was overturned with the change of government. But I'm going to say a few home truths here because we need to clear up the record.
Both the Liberal and National parties and the Labor Party support mandatory detention, offshore processing and tow backs. Both the Liberal and National parties and the Labor Party several weeks ago voted and spoke in support of the Migration Amendment (Clarifying International Obligations for Removal) Bill 2021. In fact, I was the only MP in the House of Representatives to speak against that bill, and there was no opportunity for a division. That bill legalises under Australian law the indefinite detention of noncitizens in Australia if their visa has been cancelled or expired and they can't be returned to their country of origin. So, in fact, in some circumstances the Labor Party supports indefinite detention.
These are all facts, and I think it's important that we understand that this is the case. I'm reaching out to both sides of the chamber—to the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Labor Party—and I'm saying to all three parties, 'You've got to lift your game and you've got to adopt a more humane and internationally lawful response to asylum seekers.' I note that neither the Liberal and National parties nor the Labor Party supported my Ending Indefinite and Arbitrary Immigration Detention Bill 2021. That bill provided that alternatives to immigration detention, which may take various forms depending on the particular circumstances of the individual, would be almost always used in preference to immigration detention. Under that bill, which received no support from any major party, immigration detention for noncitizens and refugees would have needed to be lawful, necessary, proportionate and for the shortest time possible. The provisions of that bill made mandatory detention illegal. The bill also clearly outlined the reasons, time frames, communication and services that would have to be available in immigration detention, and which would be independently monitored. So the government and the opposition were given the opportunity to support a bill that would have ended indefinite and arbitrary immigration detention, and that bill received no support from either.
My Refugee Protection Bill in 2019 also received no support from any major party. That bill provided for a sustainable, equitable and humane response to the protection and processing of asylum seekers and refugees in the Asia-Pacific region. A key component of that bill was the Asia-Pacific Asylum Seeker Solution, APASS, which was to be a regional framework initiated by the Australian government in partnership with other Asia-Pacific countries and overseen by the UNHCR—an alternative to our current regime of mandatory detention, tow backs, offshore processing and preparedness to indefinitely detain noncitizens who can't be returned to their country of origin.
I support the motion because of course we need to get the remaining people off Nauru and Manus Island in PNG. Of course we have to get the many people who are in immigration detention in Australia out of detention. The motion is sound. But we've got to stop these confected expressions of concern when, at the end of the day, Australia's bipartisan policy and its response to asylum seekers remain fundamentally immoral and illegal under international law. This country must adopt an alternative response to asylum seekers—one that is moral, one that is legal under international law and one that we can be proud of on the international stage. For now, we remain a pariah when it comes to our response to asylum seekers.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (11:04): It's with great pleasure that I stand in this House to speak to the motion moved by the member for Macnamara, a colleague for those of us on this side of the House and a strong advocate—amongst many within the Labor Party—for a fair, compassionate and humane approach to policy work on refugees and asylum seekers in Australia. I'm delighted to stand to speak in support of this motion today.
Australians have gone through collective heartbreak in these last few weeks as we've seen the Murugappan family cruelly ripped apart by this government. This is a family whose two children were born here in Australia. This is a family who has been contributing to Australia—to the social and cultural capital of this nation—for more than four years now. In 2018 the government burst into their home in rural Australia and tore this family from their new life. One of the children, Tharnicaa, was evacuated earlier this month to the Perth Children's Hospital to be treated for pneumonia and a suspected blood infection she acquired while in detention on Christmas Island. The family was separated and spent weeks apart until, finally, last week the minister allowed the family to be reunited in Perth. Yet they remain there in community detention until there is a decision on their case, which is currently before the courts.
The government could, of course, use ministerial discretion in this case. Peter Dutton, let me remind you, used ministerial discretion 450 times in the period he was the immigration minister, from 2014 to 2018. Probably lots of those were au pairs, but many of them were asylum seekers and refugees. Has there been a flood of au pairs or others into this country since? No. Has the integrity of the system collapsed because he used his discretion 450 times? No. The government should have exercised that discretion much, much earlier on. This is now a tragic mess of the government's own making. Only Labor will be able to fix this mess from government. There is a definite need for a sense of humanity to be brought back into these discussions.
Most Australians recognise that the policymaking challenges in this area are complex, but they are being made more so by the politics of false binaries and unnecessary aggression from Minister Dutton and those around him. This noise has crowded out both a reasoned and reasonable exchange of ideas and the voices of those whose lives are directly affected by the policy choices of this government. We have to change this. We have to prevail over the politics of fear and division. Migrants and refugees have made a very important social, economic and cultural contribution throughout our nation's history. Australians are rightly proud of our immigration story and should be concerned at how this government has been undermining the foundations of our nation. It's our job to call out the dog-whistling rhetoric.
Labor aspires to progressively increase Australia's government-funded humanitarian intake of refugees to 27,000 places. We also want to increase the community-sponsored refugee program intake to 5,000 places a year. This is a highly successful program in comparable nations like Canada. It's what the Australian community has been asking for and it's what we should be spending our energy and resources on right now. We think that we can do much more to address the global humanitarian crisis. We need a compassionate approach to asylum seekers which enables refugees to progress their claims safely and securely. To deny people the care they need isn't being tough on borders and control; it's downright cruel and barbaric. And the government should be immediately accepting New Zealand's offer to resettle 150 refugees per year. There is no time to waste. Take that offer up and start acting in a compassionate and humane manner.
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (11:09): I rise to speak on the member for Macnamara's motion on refugee resettlement and want to thank him for moving this very important motion today. Today in Australia over 100 refugees are detained in hotels and immigration detention facilities, including five women. There are 230 people who remain on Nauru or in Papua New Guinea. There are 1,000 people who are on bridging visas in our community. Medevac enabled asylum seekers caught in Australia's punitive system of immigration detention to access essential medical treatment here in Australia. There were 100 refugees who were released from detention in hotels during or after accessing vital medical treatment, but the Morrison government has halted these releases, and we don't know when they will begin again.
When someone is released into the Australian community on a bridging visa, they receive three to six weeks of support from the government and then they are on their own, in limbo, up against the confusing Australian immigration system. It is only thanks to organisations like the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre and other non-government organisations and community groups across Australia that support is available. With this support the 100 refugees released from hotel detention are succeeding. The majority have secured employment and have been welcomed into communities around Australia.
The Murugappan family are an example of the productive and happy lives that asylum seekers can live in the community. The community of Biloela want this family back, contributing to their community. The contrast between their lives in the community and the last four years they have spent in detention shows just how destructive and expensive our immigration detention systems are. The government has spent millions of dollars locking up the Murugappan family over the last four years. The government has said that the cost is almost $7 million, but other estimates say that the cost is closer to $50 million. Not only is this cruelty illegal under international law; it is shockingly costly. Compare this to living in the community where the Murugappan family worked, contributed, made friends and lived normal lives after years of trauma experienced in their home country. Canberrans want this family to remain in Australia and be allowed to return to their community in Biloela. I again back these calls and once again request that Ministers Hawke and Andrews use their powers available to them to grant this family permanent residency here in Australia in Biloela.
The 2021 ALP National Platform says:
Migrants and refugees have made an important social and economic contribution throughout our nation's history. Australia's diversity is a source of national strength and a critical factor in nationbuilding.
Our platform also acknowledges the role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as the international agency dealing with the world's response to this humanitarian need. In government, Labor will ensure Australia is one of the leading contributors to the global work of the UNHCR, with a significant increase in funding for the UNHCR. The work of the UNHCR is vital, but the reality is that it is underfunded and underresourced. Asylum seekers wait years for permanent resettlement, and this has led to people risking their lives to take the boat journey to Australia. If you care about an orderly system of refugee resettlement here, you must be committed to a strong UNHCR and to a high level of refugee resettlement.
As per our national platform Labor will increase the humanitarian intake of refugees to create this orderly pathway to resettlement in Australia. Labor's aspiration is to progressively increase Australia's government funded humanitarian intake to 27,000 places per year and to progressively increase the community sponsored refugee program intake to 5,000 places per year. We know that temporary protection visas place refugees in an ongoing state of uncertainty and prevent meaningful settlement, creating hardship for refugees and denying Australia the benefit of their contribution. As per our national platform, Labor will abolish temporary protection visas and safe-haven enterprise visas and transition eligible refugees into permanent visa arrangements. We want protection claims made in Australia to be assessed and reviewed with procedural fairness and efficiency. Currently the system is not transparent, fair or consistent, and Labor will make these changes.
Although I personally struggle with the concept of third-country resettlement, I back it because I know, for many asylum seekers currently here in Australia, it will be the fastest way to enable them to live normal lives. The government should accept New Zealand's offer to resettle 150 refugees per year. In government, Labor will explore options other than indefinite detention, including third-country resettlement, to deal with refugees with adverse security assessments in a way that does not jeopardise Australia's national security interests. But, unlike the Morrison government, the Labor Party knows that indefinite detention is not the answer and is committed to ending it.
Debate adjourned.
His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (11:15): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes the death of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh;
(2) remembers his extraordinary life of service and sacrifice on behalf of the Commonwealth;
(3) acknowledges his important contribution to Australia, through his visits, patronage of numerous organisations and establishment of the Duke of Edinburgh Awards; and
(4) offers condolences to Her Majesty The Queen and members of the Royal Family.
In mourning the death of His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, we mourn not just the death of one extraordinary man but the end of a generation. Because of Prince Philip's very long life of 99 years, he represented the values of a generation of heroic men who served our country and its allies in World War II and who have now largely passed away. Prince Philip represented those manly virtues of service, duty, physical activity, steadfastness and, as he would have said, 'just getting on with it'. He was not just Prince Consort; he was an extraordinary man in his own right.
Born the year before the crown was toppled in Greece, he fled to England as a baby in an orange crate. His mother, Princess Alice, hid a Jewish family in Greece, saving them from extermination, and in Israel, where she is buried, is honoured with Israel's highest honour, named one of the Righteous among the Nations. Prince Philip was raised by his cousins, the Mountbattens; and the wonderful influence of Gordonstoun and its principal, the extraordinary Kurt Hahn. He was sent to Dartmouth naval college, where he topped his graduating class, and at 21 was the youngest first lieutenant in the Royal Navy. Prince Philip served as a naval officer in the Second World War, seeing action in Greece and Crete, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. When war broke out, Prince Philip joined the battleship HMS Ramillies in Ceylon. On this vessel, Prince Philip first visited Australia, taking part in the escort of ANZAC troop convoys to the Suez. He was mentioned in dispatches for his actions at the Battle of Cape Matapan, and saved his ship from German aerial bombardment at the invasion of Sicily. Under fire, he demonstrated he was a great leader of men. He was present at the Japanese surrender on board the USS Missouri.
This was the distinguished naval career he put aside when he married Princess Elizabeth in 1947. How unusual a choice it would have been, especially in his generation, for a man of such promise to choose to serve in such a different capacity as Prince Consort to the Queen. Like Prince Albert to Queen Victoria, he was both a figure of stability and an innovator. Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip were married on 20 November 1947 at Westminster Abbey. Because the British economy hadn't recovered from the war, the Queen required ration coupons to buy the material for her gown. Queen Elizabeth gave birth to Prince Charles on 14 November 1948, Princess Anne in 1950, Prince Andrew in 1960 and Prince Edward in 1964. Prince Philip and the Queen had eight grandchildren and nine, now 10, great-grandchildren.
Serving with Australians during the war, Prince Philip took a special interest in Australia and its people. Prince Philip visited Australia 26 times, more than any other member of the royal family, including to open the Melbourne Olympics. Prince Philip and the Queen stopped briefly in my electorate on 9 February 1954, and the Sydney Morning Herald records that at Hornsby Station, 'the Queen and the Duke came onto the observation platform to wave to the crowds'.
Prince Philip loved nature and was deeply committed to conservation. He was president of the World Wildlife Fund. It's perhaps now forgotten that Prince Philip also served as the second president of Australian Conservation Foundation, succeeding Garfield Barwick, from 1971 to 1976. He was Field Marshal of the Australian Army, Marshal of the RAAF and Admiral of the Fleet of the RAN. He was patron, life member, honorary member, colonel in chief or commodore in chief of over 50 Australian organisations. These reflected his many interests, including carriage driving, building, engineering, medicine, agriculture, ornithology, sailing, polo, surf lifesaving, military service and, strangely, the Sydney University Tiddlywinks Society, which perhaps demonstrates his sense of humour.
Undoubtedly, his greatest legacy, though, is the Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Founded in 1956, and based on the values of his own education at Gordonstoun, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award encourages young people to participate in physical activity, volunteering, skills development and leadership. What was a good idea in the fifties is such a vital one in an age where screen addiction, mental health issues and obesity rates among young people are on the rise. Since its inception, over eight million people in 130 countries have participated in the award, including 775,000 Australians. Presently, from high schools in my electorate alone, 1,013 people have undertaken the Duke of Edinburgh's Award.
Today, we salute the Duke of Edinburgh and acknowledges his memory, and our thoughts remain with the Queen in her time of grief. That they had a marriage of 73 years is remarkable. To lose a spouse at any age, especially when you've been in such an interdependent partnership, is difficult, but it is so much more so for the Queen at 95. As she sat by herself at the funeral in April, a staid figure in her time of mourning, the hearts of people around the world were with Her Majesty.
Prince Philip's service as Prince Consort made him a global figure, his war service made him a hero and his work with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award made him a visionary. May his memory be a blessing and a comfort to the Queen and an inspiration to people everywhere.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Dr Allen: I second the motion.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (11:20): Today I join the member for Berowra in paying tribute to His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. The Duke has been remembered around the world for his unwavering service to his Queen, and therefore our Queen, and to his country, our country and the entire Commonwealth. Many in my electorate of Brand are originally from the United Kingdom, and many will remember Prince Philip very fondly.
A naval man, Prince Philip began his naval career as a 17-year-old attending Britannia Royal Naval College in Dartmouth in Devon. After naval college, in 1940, after the war started, he was assigned to HMS Ramillies in the Indian Ocean, escorting troops from Australia to Egypt. It was at this time that Prince Philip first visited Australia, including Western Australia, the first of what would be more than 20 visits to our shores in his life. In fact, no member of the royal family has visited Australia more often than Prince Philip did. Prince Philip's active naval career spanned almost 14 years, ending in 1953 at the rank of commander. He remained greatly interested in and involved with naval service during royal life, with patronages and association with naval charities and clubs.
It is difficult to underestimate the great depth of feeling serving members of the military have had toward the royal family, particularly during and in the aftermath of World War II. My dad, John Morris, was in the same generation as Prince Philip and also served in the Royal Navy in the Second World War, serving as an able seaman and radar operator. He would often tell the story of the day when Prince Philip's uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten visited the ship he was serving on. I think it was HMS Jamaica, but I may be wrong; Dad told a lot of stories of his naval service. But it was clearly a highlight of his service when Lord Louis Mountbatten came to the ship and told some jokes to the sailors—probably a bit blue, but sailors are entitled to have those jokes amongst themselves, I suppose. Dad's fondness for Mountbatten was always evident, and it was always a pleasure for him to tell the story of when they had royalty on board his ship. The leadership of the royal family during those dark days was always remembered by people like my father who lived through that dreadful war. Like Mountbatten, Prince Philip exemplified that leadership. On his 90th birthday, in 2011, in recognition of his service to the Navy, the Queen conferred the title and office of Lord High Admiral on him.
Prince Philip's first royal visit to Australia was with Queen Elizabeth in 1954. It was a significant tour, as it was the first time a reigning monarch had ever visited our nation. The couple came to Perth as one of the 70 cities they visited during the eight-week-long royal visit. In 1962, Prince Philip again visited Perth for the Commonwealth Games, where he opened the event.
In 2011, Perth hosted the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, and Prince Philip travelled with Her Majesty, who opened the event on 28 October of that year. I was really pleased to help with the organisation of that event on behalf of the Australian government at the time. The CHOGM visit would be Prince Philip's final trip to Australia. While in Perth, he made a visit to the Special Air Service Regiment to present the coveted sandy berets to Army soldiers who had passed the course and were accepted into the regiment. Finally, before Her Majesty and Prince Philip flew home to England, they attended the Big Aussie Barbecue, held on the Perth Esplanade, with over 100,000 people lining on the streets of Perth to bid them farewell. I think everyone knew it was the last time they would be in WA. At one stage, the Prince even took the tongs from the barbecue operators and attended to the very important job of sizzling those sausages.
One of Prince Philip's enduring legacies, as has been noted many times following his death, was the creation of the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme in 1956, with the aim of giving young boys an opportunity to do something productive with their time. It has been a spectacular achievement. In 1959, the scheme was launched in Australia, and since then more than 775,000 young Australians—young women and men—have participated in this program, giving them the confidence and skills to take life on with enthusiasm. It is a remarkable gift to have given so many young people around the world and a remarkable legacy for the Duke to leave us all with.
Personally, I support Australia becoming a Republic and I believe an Australian should be able to be the head of state of this nation, but I nonetheless have the greatest respect for the lifelong service and commitment that Her Majesty the Queen and her husband, Prince Philip, have given to their country, our country and the Commonwealth of Nations over many, many years. Our condolences always with the Queen, our Queen, and vale His Royal Highness Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (11:25): I'd like to thank the member for Berowra for moving this motion, an opportunity to reflect on the extraordinary life of an extraordinary man. Like many others in this place, I received the sadness of the news of the death of His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, last month. My first thought was for his family: Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, his four children and his grandchildren and great-grandchildren—a sad day for them all. But, of course, the passing of the Prince requires reflection on his remarkable life and his dedication to service to the Crown, to our country and, indeed, to the entire Commonwealth.
Prince Philip gave lifelong support to the Queen and lived an exemplary life of service. In Her Majesty's own words, Prince Philip was her 'strength and stay'. From their first days of romance before the war to his last days together with the Queen in Windsor, they were an unbeatable team, united in their dedication to the Crown and their family. For the 73 years they were married—I mean, really, quite extraordinary; 73 years. I wish that on all the members in this parliament—an extraordinary feat. They endured conflicts both external and internal. An unusual marriage for the time, the Prince had to put aside his career to support his partner, a situation now that is not so unusual after all, but we can look to them to learn and draw lessons from the history of their marriage.
Often outspoken, Prince Philip was criticised by some for his politically incorrect comments. However, he did prove time and time again that he had a genuine interest in others and only sought to improve lives with geniality and good humour. The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, created 65 years ago, embodies this genuine interest. It is an award that is about young people making a contribution, taking responsibility, persevering, developing skills and achieving their best selves as well as for others. It is designed to demonstrate what can be achieved by selfless service, an award modelled on how the Duke himself saw life. Millions have completed the Duke of Edinburgh's Award around the world, and in Australia alone 775,000 young people have participated. Indeed, my niece is completing it right now.
Prince Philip was a frequent visitor to Australia over his life—in fact, 26 times, more than any other royal—and he was a steadfast friend of Australia. He once described a week's holiday on a sheep station in Victoria, my home state, as the best holiday he'd ever had. A 'perfectly natural life; no frills and no fads' is what he said about it. During these many visits he acquired a large private collection of Australian art. He had a genuine admiration of Indigenous artists, including Albert Namatjira, and purchased more than a dozen Indigenous pieces during his lifetime. In 1963 the Queen bought a work by Sydney Nolan for the Duke for his birthday, and in later years, either by purchase or by gift, he added paintings by Clifton Pugh, Donald Friend, William Dobell and Olga Claire Garner to his collection.
His last visit to Australia was to accompany the Queen to a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in 2011. It was more than 70 years since his first visit during the war. At the time, he opened my previous place of employment, the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne new build. It was an incredible experience. A nearly $1 billion hospital was opened to grate fanfare and excitement. It was such a special occasion to have both Prince Philip and the Queen there and the Queen to open the building. And it was a lovely piece of history because, 50 years previously, the new Royal Children's Hospital had been opened by the Queen in attendance with Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, the great patron of the Royal Children's Hospital, and the two women made an acknowledgement of the fact at that event, with the Prince Philip by the Queen's side.
So today I record our gratitude for the lifetime of service to the Crown that the Prince has paid and that he has served our Commonwealth and our country so brilliantly. I learnt on their last visit to Melbourne that the Queen had actually opened 2,000 hospitals in her lifetime. These are extraordinary outcomes for a couple that have lived their life of service to their country, to the Crown and to our Commonwealth, and I extend my sincere condolences to Her Majesty the Queen and to the royal family in this, their time of grief—but especially to Her Majesty. May he rest in peace.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (11:30): I never saw her passing by, nor the Duke of Edinburgh, but, as a participant in his awards scheme, I do have a great admiration for the Duke. It's an extraordinary thing, set up for young people aged 14 to 24, now operating in 130 countries and operational in Australia since 1959. Over 775,000 young Australians have participated in the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme. Every year over 25,000 young Australians start, and over 11,000 finish, a Duke of Edinburgh's award. They have programs now to support disadvantaged Australians to complete the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme, and their impact evaluation shows the effect that it has on the self-worth of young Australians, their commitment to their local community and their ability to take on new skills. One estimate says that there are over a quarter of a million volunteering hours done by award participants in Australia each year. Of course, some of those might well have been done without the award scheme, but I can certainly say that, for my own part, I spent a lot more time volunteering as a participant in the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme than I would have done without it.
The scheme has three levels—bronze, silver and gold—involving components of voluntary service, physical recreation, skills, an adventurous journey and a Gold Residential Project. The gold award requires 12 months of voluntary service averaging an hour a week; 12 months of physical recreation, again averaging an hour a week; a 12-month period of focusing on a skill for an hour of week; an adventurous journey for four days and three nights; and a residential project for five days and four nights. Those components mean that, when you finish the gold award, you really do feel like you've earned something.
For me, as a participant, the scheme wouldn't have happened at the school I attended, James Ruse Agricultural High School, without the energy of George Matthews, our metalwork teacher, a former master sergeant in the US Air Force. Mr Matthews was somebody who barked orders, who took no compromise, who knew there was a right way of everything being done. In other words, he was the perfect person to take large groups of unruly teenagers off into the wilds for multiday treks. He constructed a carrier to take our bikes, because we would do bike expeditions, and tow behind one of the school's vehicles. That meant weekends spent welding the thing together. It was a two-storey bike carrier which could carry 20 or 30 bikes at one time—an extraordinary construction. I think it was the solo work of George Matthews. But the problem came when he was driving across the Mooney Mooney Bridge and the wind caught the back of the bike carrier. By the time he got to the other side of the bridge, the bike carrier was swinging so far that it was just missing the side of the bridge by what seemed like a metre or so, dragging the back of the truck from one side to another. I am still amazed that he managed to get across the bridge. He is in good health. He's a constituent of the member for Dobell, living happily in Berkeley Vale.
I want to finish by acknowledging the Duke of Edinburgh's award recipients from the ACT in 2020 and 2021. The gold awardees were Lisa Corbett, Madeleine Bloom, Maddison McRae, Taylor Miners, Jack Coyle, Sophie Holloway, Lachlan Madden, Matthew Robinson, Genevieve Madden, Stephanie Bell, Stephen Elliott, Rhea Chopra and Alvin Charles. The silver awardees were Angus Truman, Zoe Salazar Ballivian, Amy Miners, Elizabeth van der Walt and Jasmine Sun. The bronze awardees were Charlotte Bick, Ava McSweeney, Lachlan Ho, Serina Guo and Lilly Vassallo. The board of the Duke of Edinburgh's award scheme, headed by Gary Nairn and Sandra Nori, as chair and deputy chair respectively, does a great deal to publicise the award, to ensure that it fulfils the mission that the Duke of Edinburgh laid down for it. It is a scheme which has enjoyed an illustrious past and has a strong future ahead of it. It is an extraordinary testament to the hard work of the Duke of Edinburgh.
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (11:35): It is with a heavy heart that I rise to speak on this motion to acknowledge the passing of a true friend of Australia, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. In my experience, love starts in friendship. That was indeed the case between the dashing young Greek prince and a young woman, Princess Elizabeth, who was set to become one of the most influential monarchs in history. Their friendship was sealed over lemonade and ginger biscuits, often after a tennis match, when Princess Elizabeth was in her teens. In the coming years, it progressed to be a relationship that would be known as one of the greatest of all time. We should all be so lucky as to enjoy a marriage with the longevity and love that they experienced. It was a relationship that stood the test of time, travelled across the globe, withstood wars and hardship, and celebrated many milestones. It was a relationship that welcomed four children, eight grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren.
Despite the number of people a sovereign engages with on a daily basis, being a sovereign would at times be a very lonely task. Our Queen has never wavered on the promise she made on her 21st birthday to serve the great imperial family to which we all belong. Day in, day out, her Majesty has served and continues to serve. Until his recent passing, the Duke of Edinburgh was a constant companion by her side, often seen offering a joke or an encouragement. We will never truly appreciate the role the Duke of Edinburgh played in Her Majesty's personal life but, as Her Majesty's late private secretary once said, Prince Philip was the only man in the world to treat the Queen simply as another human being. The role that he played supporting our Queen is worth acknowledging and worth our thanks.
The Duke was a very strong supporter of Australia. He visited our shores on more than 20 occasions. His first visit was on the British battleship HMS Ramillies, which sailed into Sydney Harbour in 1940. On board was an 18-year-old midshipman, Philip the Prince of Greece. He soon fell in love with Australia; in his younger years he was seen surfing, horseback riding, shooting and dancing. One of his most noted and historic visits to Australia was his first visit as the Duke of Edinburgh, the royal tour in 1954, alongside the reigning monarch his young wife Queen Elizabeth. An incredible 75 per cent of Australians reportedly came out to see the young royal couple. Many a news article on the visit noted how personable the Prince was, how he took the time to seek out young children or an elderly onlooker and was sure to go over for a chat. From the outset Australians knew he was funny and witty, and that suited our own larrikin nature. For decades he continued to serve faithfully. He opened the Melbourne Olympics in 1956, the Commonwealth Games in Perth and the new Parliament House in 1988 along with her Majesty.
Many of the Duke's engagements in Australia were of course focused on the Duke of Edinburgh Award—a scheme he founded in 1956 and introduced to Australia in 1959. The scheme focuses on contributing to your community, self-improvement and physical fitness. Over 750,000 Australians have participated in the program, including the member for Fenner and me. It teaches sticking power, I can tell you that! Having started the program in high school, I was well into university by the time I had achieved my gold award. The scheme teaches a love of the outdoors and adventure. I still enjoy things like rock climbing and abseiling today, and I only took those up because of the award. And it teaches service—service to your community and nation. That obviously drives me today, which is why I have entered this place. And that love of service exemplifies its namesake, the Duke of Edinburgh.
Your Majesty, on behalf of the people of Ryan I would like to express our deepest sympathy on the passing of your beloved husband, a great friend of Australia, His Royal Highness Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. We will remember him.
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 sitting.
Nuclear Weapons
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (11:40): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that July 2021 marks the 30th anniversary of South Africa's dismantling of its nuclear arsenal in early July 1991;
(2) notes that:
(a) this represents the only instance in history when a nuclear power has voluntarily renounced nuclear weapons; and
(b) the decision to create nuclear weapons was made in the early 1980s, and the decision to terminate the program (which then included six weapons) was made by President FW de Klerk in 1989, and implemented over the following years;
(3) commends South Africa on this momentous decision, which stands as a proud example to other nuclear weapon states; and
(4) calls on:
(a) all states that possess nuclear weapons to take measures that will lower the chance of nuclear war, including reducing the size of their stockpiles, taking weapons off hair-trigger alert, installing kill switches in all missiles, and committing to a no-first-use policy; and
(b) the Government to work in international forums to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons.
Watching the awesome power of the first nuclear tests, scientist Robert Oppenheimer was reminded of a line from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita: 'Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.' At the height of the Cold War there were 70,000 nuclear weapons. There are still some 14,000. Those that currently exist are, in many cases, based on fusion reactions, in which the fission reaction is just the percussion cap that sets off the big explosion. The B83, the United States's most powerful nuclear weapon, is 70 times more powerful than the atomic bomb that killed 100,000 Hiroshima residents. There are scientists now looking at creating weapons that are 100 times more powerful than the B83. Nuclear war would, of course, kill hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of people, through the direct impact of weapons and their fallout, but the flow-on could be worse still: a so-called nuclear winter, which might reduce temperatures by some 20 or 30 degrees Celsius, wiping out crops and causing millions to die of starvation.
Across the world, there are nine nuclear powers. The United States and Russia hold the vast bulk of the 14,000 nuclear weapons—around 13,000 between them—and then, among the remaining powers, Britain, France, China, India and Pakistan have a few hundred each. North Korea and Israel probably have fewer than 100. But it only takes one nuclear weapon to devastate a city. It is appropriate, then, that we acknowledge the 30th anniversary of a time which is unique in human history: the decision by South Africa to voluntarily renounce its nuclear program. South Africa acquired nuclear weapons in the mid-1980s, but under FW de Klerk, who would go on to share the Nobel Peace Prize, voluntarily made the decision to renounce them in 1989 and, over the next two years, went about dismantling its stockpile. You might say that's not entirely unique. It is true that, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus transferred nuclear weapons to Russia. But, in terms of a single state, the decision made by South Africa is an extraordinary one, and we should celebrate them for doing that. If the world's nine nuclear-weapons-owning countries were to become eight or seven or six, it would be a safer world.
Listening to this speech in the Chamber today are two work experience students in my office, Emily Rowe and Kasia Pownall. I want them to live in an Australia which is safer for having reduced the scourge and the risk of nuclear weapons. Former military analyst Daniel Ellsberg has proposed a Manhattan Project II, in which states go about taking steps that would reduce the risk. Part of that is in reducing stockpiles, because every missile is a potential point of failure; the potential for an accidental launch or theft by a terrorist goes up with the number of weapons. But it is also important to think about the fact that in three of the nuclear-weapons-owning countries—the United States, France and North Korea—launch authority resides solely with the head of state.
It would be useful for other countries to adopt the approach of not using nuclear weapons unless attacked by nuclear weapons. China has had this approach since 1964 and India since 1998. The United States is wrong to have canvassed the possibility of nuclear weapons being used to respond to a cyberattack. A declaration of 'no first use' isn't an admission of weakness; it's a reflection of strength and confidence in your non-nuclear forces. The motion also speaks about the importance of a self-destruct feature in missiles to allow them to be recalled.
Denuclearisation is no radical peacenik view. Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn have written about the importance of a world free of nuclear weapons. It is a goal to which we should aspire.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr Josh Wilson: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (11:45): Nuclear has two places in this world: one is as a clean energy source and the other is as a weapon of destruction. It is a weapon of destruction that we're here to talk about today, and it's a no-go as far as I'm concerned. I congratulate South Africa for banning the use of nuclear weapons 30 years ago come July this year.
I had the fortune—or misfortune—to go to Kazakhstan in about 2012 with the then Speaker, Harry Jenkins, and Gareth Evans, the former foreign affairs minister. They both could see the perils of nuclear weapons. There were 105 countries that attended that conference in Kazakhstan. I visited a place called Semipalatinsk in north-east Kazakhstan, very close to the Chinese-Russian border, and that told me what devastation nuclear testing has done to that country. I've been to places like Hiroshima and seen the aftermath of what happened in 1945. I haven't been to Nagasaki, but it was a similar event, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed outright and others were affected for many years after. On that trip to Kazakhstan, I noticed that there are still high radiation levels in a lot of areas, whether in the soil, in the agriculture fields or in the rivers. Some rivers today are still blocked from entering other rivers because it would be very toxic if this water went into those streams.
In 1947, 1948 and 1949 Russia and Kazakhstan were part of the USSR. The USSR tested nuclear weapons on Kazakhstan's soil for something like 40 years. From 1948 to 1992 it tested its nuclear weapons. Similar events happened around the world, whether in the Nevada Desert, in Australia at Maralinga or in the atolls controlled by the French. That was when I was only a young lad—a while ago now. In that week in 2012, 105 countries gathered in Kazakhstan, and we learnt the horrors that the people of Semipalatinsk suffered and how they are still suffering. In 1949 the Russians did not tell the Kazakhstanis what they were doing, and when the first explosion went off all the people could see was this great big mushroom across their land. The animals—cattle, horses and dogs—all took off in fright, never to return to their farms. Some Kazakhstanis stopped in their homes—they didn't know what was going on—and others went outside and looked in amazement to see this big mushroom. They didn't know what it was and they weren't told. The sad thing is that about four years later the women of Kazakhstan around Semipalatinsk started to have deformed babies. The foetuses were terrible. They are still on display in a laboratory in Semipalatinsk. I've seen them firsthand, and they'll stick in my mind until the day I die. The people of Semipalatinsk have actually changed the name of their town because it had such a bad name, and they now call it another name very close to Semipalatinsk, but they also call it 'Stinks'. The people came out in their streets in their hundreds, and, as we walked around and talked to them, they were all still crying—actually crying—and saying: 'You must stop nuclear weaponry.'
So that is why I congratulate South Africa—the only country that has voluntarily given up nuclear weapons. Places like Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave them up after they separated themselves from the USSR. Nevertheless, nuclear weapons are still a scourge on our society. We cannot let happen again what happened in Hiroshima or in Nagasaki. We just can't contemplate that ever happening again. And God help us if it does.
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (11:51): I'm grateful to the member for Fenner for allowing us to mark a significant anniversary in the vital cause of nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, and I thank all members for participating in this debate. In 1991, South Africa made the courageous and principled decision to walk away from nuclear weapon capability at a point at which they already possessed six nuclear weapons. It meant that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons came into effect under the promising star of a decision that showed what could be achieved through the commitment to mitigate and then undo the existential threat posed by weapons that should never have been used and can never be acceptable.
As we mark this act of national courage from 30 years ago, we'd not be honouring that courage or according proper respect to that achievement by being passive and rosy-eyed about the present situation with respect to nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. The NPT, for all its cooperative innovation, early success and hopefulness, has, in recent years, run out of steam. Countries like the US and Russia are investing in updating their arsenals and investing in the development of new, so-called tactical nuclear weapons. The deep idiocy behind those devices is the idea that you could make and potentially use a nuclear bomb that might be sufficiently small to not trigger Armageddon.
Until the end of the Trump presidency, there was the real prospect that both the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty would fall apart. As Arms Control Today noted, that would have meant that, for the first time in nearly 50 years, there would be no legally binding limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals. Fortunately, the election of President Biden has meant at least an extension of the START agreement.
In March this year, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced he intended to increase the cap on his country's nuclear arsenal by 40 per cent. That is not consistent with article 6 of the NPT. It's a shame the present Australian government remains silent about the deterioration of international agreements and norms that promote disarmament and work against nuclear proliferation. It used to be a distinctive feature of Australia's principled, skilful and influential middle-power diplomacy. We made a difference on this absolutely critical issue, and I'm glad that Labor is resolved to do so again if we're elected to government.
Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, now Chair of The Elders, a group of independent global leaders working for peace, has said, in relation to Prime Minister Johnson's announcement:
While the UK cites increased security threats as justification for this move, the appropriate response to these challenges should be to work multilaterally to strengthen international arms control agreements and to reduce—not increase—the number of nuclear weapons in existence.
In his 1998 address to the UN General Assembly, President Nelson Mandela reflected on South Africa's nuclear disarmament leadership by saying:
We must ask the question, which might sound naive to those who have elaborated sophisticated arguments to justify their refusal to eliminate these terrible and terrifying weapons of mass destruction—why do they need them anyway!
In reality, no rational answer can be advanced to explain in a satisfactory manner what, in the end, is the consequence of Cold War inertia and an attachment to the use of the threat of brute force, to assert the primacy of some States over others.
Mercifully the nuclear weapons ban treaty is another example of cooperative innovation. It's no surprise that South Africa signed the TPNW, as it's known, on the day it opened for signature and then ratified it in 2019. It's heartening that this week in Canberra the Australian Local Government Association resolved unanimously at their national general assembly to support the TPNW and to call on the Australian government to do likewise. I applaud that decision, and I acknowledge and thank ICAN for their all-day, everyday advocacy and campaign work.
As someone who in the course of my time as a councillor and deputy mayor in the City of Fremantle was fortunate to participate in the Mayors for Peace initiative and visit Hiroshima, where that powerful antinuclear campaign began, I'm not surprised, but I am quite proud, that the City of Fremantle was one of five movers of the ALGA motion on the ban treaty this week. Right now the nuclear weapons ban treaty has 86 signatories and 54 state parties. It came into force on 22 January this year. I believe the significance of that day will grow and grow in the years to come, and I hope we're able to mark that anniversary soon for the achievement of the treaty's purpose. We should all hope so, because, until we achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons, we are, unfortunately, marking time until they are used.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (11:56): It's probably hard for anyone who wasn't already a teenager or older in the 1980s to imagine how the threat of nuclear war hung over us. The fear that the then USSR and the US were only a hop, skip and a jump from pushing buttons was palpable at times. I remember it well, and I wasn't surprised several years ago when documents were released that showed that there were 10 days in November 1983 when the United States and the Soviet Union nearly started a nuclear war. Documents from the CIA, NSA, KGB and senior officials in both countries revealed just how close we came to mutually assured destruction, really, over a military exercise, which was called Able Archer 83. It simulated the transition by NATO from a conventional war to a nuclear war, and it culminated in the simulated release of warheads against the Soviet Union. That was happening in the early 1980s.
At this time there was also an enormous pressure on South Africa to end apartheid. As a young journalist, I attended the 1986 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London with Prime Minister Bob Hawke. This was a special meeting held in between the biennial CHOGMs in order to consider the recommendations of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group regarding economic sanctions against South Africa. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher refused to support mandatory sanctions, and it resulted in a very acrimonious meeting. It was quite an extraordinary event for a young journalist to be covering, especially with Australia leading the charge in support of sanctions, which were ultimately agreed to a year later. So that was the context in the eighties in which South Africa was making its own decision to create nuclear weapons.
Much occurred in the short intervening years. By 1989 President FW de Klerk decided to terminate the program. They'd had six weapons by that stage. This is the only instance in history when a nuclear power has voluntarily renounced nuclear weapons. The 30th anniversary of that decision is coming up in July, and it's one we can be very grateful for. It brings us to where we are now.
The world has enforced multiple treaties, but, from this year, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has not been signed by Australia. The ambition for a world free of nuclear weapons is one that Labor shares. I know it's an ambition that the students at Kindlehill in Wentworth Falls share, too, and I've been pleased to support their call to the government to sign the treaty. Labor is committed to signing and ratifying the treaty, obviously after taking into account the necessary things like effective verification and enforcement architecture, and also working to achieve universal support on it. But right now you have to ask yourself what progress is being made and what role we as a country that is known to be able to help broker complex world negotiations, as we did in the eighties around South Africa, are playing in the progress. I think 'not a lot' is probably the best way to describe it at this moment.
Among the things that have been interesting to see recently are that North Korea has been very active and, in the US, Joe Biden ran on a platform opposing nuclear weapons. But I've seen commentary that his defence budget actually backs two controversial projects put in motion by former President Donald Trump. Obviously, Russia is openly developing new tactical weapons. So I hope the recent meeting between President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva represents progress and a welcome change in the tense relationship that has existed between those two countries. The summit saw the leaders discussing a range of issues, including nuclear weapons and arms control. The future of global nuclear non-proliferation is really dependent in a lot of ways upon the commitment from both the US and Russia to work towards building agreements and collaborating on limiting and, I would hope, ending nuclear weapons. The two nations together possess over 90 per cent of the world's nuclear weapons.
For Australia, the big question is: what is our role? Australia can and should lead international efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and we can do that by calling on all states that possess nuclear weapons to take measures to lower the chance of a nuclear war. That's something we can be doing.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
In Vitro Fertilisation
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (12:01): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges that 1 in 6 Australian families face difficulty when trying to start a family and for many this is not straightforward;
(2) notes that this is a very distressing time for couples who face both emotional and financial strain throughout this journey;
(3) further acknowledges the significant investment made by the Government in helping Australian couples start a family using In Vitro Fertilisation (IVF) by:
(a) the establishment of the Your IVF Website which helps couples navigate the complicated process of IVF, have an informed understanding of their chance of success and enable them to make the right decisions for them; and
(b)investing $95.9 million for new tests on the Medicare Benefits Schedule for pre-IVF genetic testing for embryos for specific genetic or chromosomal abnormalities prior to implantation and pregnancy; and
(4) affirms the commitment of the House to help Australian couples achieve their goal of experiencing the joys of parenthood.
I think that each of us has a responsibility when we come to this place to bring our own unique experiences and backgrounds to the parliament to help shine a light on issues and to help progress change, and it's with this in mind that I present this motion today. Trying for a family is a joyous experience for many, many couples, but for other couples it doesn't just happen, as people like to say. In fact, it's a very tough process. It's very gruelling. It puts a strain on relationships and your mental health. It takes an emotional toll and also a financial toll on some couples. It's a journey worth making, of course, but, when a couple is finding it hard to conceive, it's often a lonely journey and there is stigma around discussing your fertility issues. It's something that many people don't tell their employers or their friends or even their family.
My wife and I went through this ourselves. We went through many rounds of IVF, and it was very, very tough. We are incredibly blessed that it worked out well for us. We have two beautiful children. My son, Theo, will turn four next week—so happy birthday, mate—and my beautiful daughter, Isabelle, turned one on Tuesday—so happy birthday, sweetie, to you as well. For us it turned out well and we are one of the success stories, but I often think about those couples for whom it doesn't always work out well. My wife and I have made our journey with IVF public, not because we enjoy talking about it—quite the opposite. We are very private people and we kept it a very private journey for a long, long time. But we've made the decision to talk about our journey with IVF and with miscarriage in the hope that we could progress discussions around change and try to achieve more support for families going through the same thing.
One in six couples will face difficulties starting a family, so it is a very common occurrence. What is needed, of course, is more information and support for couples that go through this. I am proud to be part of the Morrison government, which has recognised this and made it a priority over a number of budgets now, including in the most recent budget, the 2021-22 budget.
We've established the YourIVFSuccess website. This website provides clear, trusted information to help Australian couples decide if IVF treatment is right for them and to find the right clinic that suits them. It helps couples estimate their likelihood of success based on the most up-to-date data depending on their age and circumstances. It allows them to understand the journey they are embarking on before they start and to learn about the different types of IVF cycles and treatments that they will be faced with. It allows couples to search for an IVF clinic in their areas and to see the service availability, the type of patients they treat and their success rates versus the national average. The access to this information will, I believe, lead to a far more informed choice for couples to help them manage their expectations around time frames, financial impacts and, ultimately, success. This is so important. People think that IVF is very advanced, and it is very advanced science—it's miraculous what we can achieve these days—but it is still a little bit more art than it is science, and couples need to understand what they're embarking on. We have to do more in this space, but this tool is very welcome.
The Morrison government is also investing $95.9 million for new tests on the Medicare Benefits Schedule for pre-IVF genetic testing for embryos for specific genetic and chromosomal abnormalities prior to implantation and pregnancy. More Australian couples will get access to free pre-pregnancy screening as the government invests tens of millions of dollars in this new technology to help eradicate life-threatening genetic conditions. For couples who are going through this right now, my message to you is: you are not alone. You should talk about it. You should talk to your friends and family, share that journey, do it together and seek the information that is available to you.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (12:06): I second the motion. There are few things that unite this chamber more than a love of family. Indeed, I believe all Australians and, beyond Australia, all cultures of the world share that love of family. I myself was very fortunate to be born the ninth child and so brought up in a very large family. My wife, Sophia, and I have two precious little ones. I know, as the member for Ryan has laid out, the joy that you have as a parent. Indeed, when my little three-year-old was born, we had hoped so much for a child and we ourselves as a couple had great difficulty and experienced some of the challenges that the member for Ryan laid out. Thank God we have technology available to us. When you look at the face of a beautiful little boy or a beautiful little girl who has come into this world with the assistance of technology that did not exist many years ago, you cannot help, as a person of faith as I am, but be deeply touched and grateful to God to have that life right there in front of you.
But, of course, there are so many couples in this country who go through the toughest of challenges: the highs with the excitement of knowing that a pregnancy is there, the excitement a couple feels when they know there's a chance that a little life is going to come into their world, a little boy or a little girl for whom they have been hoping and praying, only to see a miscarriage take that life away and strip that couple of hope. It is completely understandable how couples fall into depression, anger and a raft of emotions. We cannot have the situation where people feel as though they have some sort of obligation to carry on as if nothing had taken place—to toughen up and get back to work. Only those who have struggled to have a child understand the emotional anguish involved in their efforts.
I often feel most for those who are never successful. I'm sure there's not one person in this chamber who doesn't have someone in their life they know is unable, for whatever reason, to have children. I find they are the most brave people and the most loving of people. More often than not they are the very ones who will put their arms around other's children. Yet they themselves, for whatever reason, have been incapable of bringing a life into this world.
I suspect that the member for Ryan's motion today is one that unites this chamber, as it would unite all Australians. He laid out the interesting statistic that one in six couples go through this. If you think of any crowd of people at any event, you don't start trying to guess statistics in this regard, but needless to say at any party or any public event there are so many people who have gone through the struggle of miscarriage and have relied on IVF, some successfully and some not. As a parliament and a government—not just this one but governments in the future—it is incumbent on us amidst our public duties to be mindful of those who have carried that load and to provide whatever assistance we can in recognition of that through which they've gone.
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (12:12): As a mother of two wonderful children—and many of my colleagues in parliament will agree—the joys of being a parent trumped all other feelings. I certainly won't undersell the difficulties that come with being a parent. Thankfully my journey to become a parent was easy in comparison to some. Sadly, there are many young couples who are struggling to start a family. In fact, I want to acknowledge the one in six Australian couples who are facing the emotional turmoil that comes with the difficulty they are having in conceiving.
There are medical processes that help to increase the chance of conception for these couples in the form of in-vitro fertilisation, or IVF as it is commonly known, but this process can be hugely expensive, which can be a very serious and distressing burden for couples desperately wanting to have their own family. The Morrison government understand the impact that this process can have on young couples. We also understand that not all Australians will have clear knowledge of the IVF process and the success rates associated with their personal attributes.
We want Australians, who may often find themselves in deeply emotionally vulnerable situations when seeking treatment, to be well informed of the journey they are undertaking and the risks and costs associated with it. With this in mind the website YourIVFSuccess was built. It was officially launched on 15 February 2021. It provides an individual IVF success estimator tool, allowing individuals to estimate their chances of IVF success through the input of individual characteristics and IVF history. This tool can become instrumental in a couple's decision to continue pursuing further treatment.
The tool currently works by allowing women to enter their individual characteristics, including how many IVF cycles they have undergone and whether they are using a fresh or frozen embryo, to estimate their chances of becoming pregnant. The website also provides independent and impartial information about nearly all fertility clinics in Australia, including the clinics' success rates, to help couples in their decision-making. A further stage of the project will also allow men to estimate their chances of IVF success through their website in the future.
We must not forget that IVF is a relatively recent breakthrough and the technology will take time to fully mature. In the interim, we need to ensure that those using the technology are sufficiently informed when engaging it. By giving people the necessary information, we can help them protect themselves against unscrupulous practitioners who may wish to take advantage of those families that have an extremely low chance of conceiving but a determined and informed desire to keep trying.
On 9 May 2021 the Morrison government demonstrated its continued support for assisted reproductive technologies, and those using them, through its announcement of $99.5 million for new tests on the Medical Benefits Schedule for pre-implementation genetic testing for embryos. Our government will never stop caring about families and those who want to start a family. Our commitment to those Australians is unwavering and steadfast. We will never stop working for their right and their freedom to have a family. I thank the member for Ryan for this wonderful motion.
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (12:17): I rise to speak on behalf of the issue raised by the member for Ryan and the importance of IVF in Australia. Like many of my colleagues I have a number of children—four, in fact. I remember when I fell pregnant to my eldest daughter, Sophia, in 2005 and how exciting that was and how easy that was for us. Becoming a parent is a dream for so many Australians. But, for a significant number, it is not always an easy journey, with one in six Australian families facing difficulty when trying to start a family. I would like to acknowledge all those Australians who are currently experiencing difficulty with fertility and how difficult that is.
Infertility is caused by a range of factors. Technically, it is a condition where you cannot fall pregnant after trying for one year. In women, infertility is brought on by difficulties with ovulation. But there are many factors, including the age of the parents; tubal disease or problems with fallopian tubes and ovulation disorders. Endometriosis is commonly associated with infertility as are polycystic ovarian syndrome, fibroids and other inflammatory diseases caused by sexually transmitted diseases. In men, fertility problems may be associated with low sperm count or low testosterone. In vitro fertilisation is more than just a process of fertilisation; it gives people hope and the opportunity to become a parent. Without this assistance, they wouldn't be able to become a parent. I'm very proud to support the motion put forward by the member for Ryan and acknowledge all those Australian families who are experiencing infertility.
Everyone knows somebody who has experienced infertility. In my family, my aunt and uncle tried for a decade and went through many miscarriages as a consequence. As a psychologist, I have come across many families who have experienced infertility. I have seen the shame and the guilt associated with infertility. I've also seen the grief in families, individuals and couples following having experienced recurrent miscarriages. The loss of life is always very, very difficult for people to go through. This impacts on people's relationships and mental health.
The world's first IVF pregnancy was reported in 1973. The first IVF baby in Australia, which was the world's third IVF baby, was born in 1980 under the supervision of the team of doctors at Monash University. Following this, the team at Monash established a further 14 pregnancies, resulting in nine live births before the end of 1981. Since then, science and technology has progressed significantly. I'd like to acknowledge our scientists in Australia, the incredible work that our fertility doctors do in this space and how important science and technology is to the future of our country. In 2018 in Australia just under 15,000 babies were born to IVF. The technology is robust and incredible, and so many babies and families have benefited from this technology ever since its inception.
Our government is committed to helping families, and in February this year the YourIVFSuccess website was successfully launched. The website provides an individual IVF success estimator tool, allowing individuals to estimate their chances of IVF success through the input of individual characteristics and IVF history. It currently allows women to enter their individual characteristics, including how many IVF cycles they have undergone and whether they are using a fresh or frozen embryo, to estimate their chances of becoming pregnant. But the creation of new life is not a woman's journey alone, and a further stage of the project will also allow men to estimate their chances of IVF success through the same website. The website also provides independent and impartial information about nearly all fertility clinics in Australia, including the clinic success rates, to help couples in their decision-making. This excellent initiative is possible in part through a $4.6 million Medical Research Future Fund grant to the University of New South Wales.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (12:22): I'd also like to thank and acknowledge the member for Ryan for bringing this very important motion to this chamber. As we all know, the journey to parenthood for many is not as straightforward as many would hope. One in six Australian families face difficulty when trying to start a family, and it can be so challenging on relationships. I know many in this chamber would know people who have been through the challenges of IVF. It's a cycle of hope, followed by failure, followed by hope and, for some, the joy of delivering a new baby.
It can be incredibly challenging on relationships. I know of people who haven't been able to maintain their relationship through the difficulties faced when one or both are infertile, and then dealing with the consequences of the very stressful difficulties of IVF. What I would say is that there is hope for so many couples because of the many fantastic scientific discoveries that have been made around the world with regard to IVF. Many Australians turn to in-vitro fertilisation, more commonly known as IVF, so that they, too, can have the joys of being parents. Australians deserve this experience.
I want to say a few comments about what in-vitro fertilisation is. It's a process of fertilisation where an egg is combined with sperm outside of the body in vitro, which is Latin for 'in glass'. The process involves monitoring and stimulating a person's ovulatory process, and that requires medication and careful monitoring. Of course, sometimes I think women can feel that that is a very difficult process to go through. An egg is removed from the ovaries and then fertilised with sperm in a culture medium in a laboratory. Then the fertilised egg undergoes embryo culture for two to six days, is implanted into the uterus and, hopefully, results in a successful pregnancy.
It took years and decades of scientific endeavour to reach what was an incredible discovery of a marvellous technology in July 1978, with Louise Brown being the first child successfully born after her mother received IVF treatment in the UK. Ms Brown was born as a result of natural cycle IVF, where no stimulation is made. The procedure took place in Dr Kershaw's Cottage Hospital, now Dr Kershaw's Hospice, in Royton, Oldham, in England.
Robert G Edwards, the physiologist who co-developed the treatment together with Patrick Steptoe and Jean Purdy, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 2010. Jean Purdy was the embryologist and nurse who was the first to see Brown's embryo divide. It must have been an incredible thing to look through a microscope after hoping for years to see this natural process take place. Unfortunately, Patrick Steptoe and Jean Purdy were not eligible for consideration for the Nobel Prize, as they had died and were not allowed to be awarded this amazing prize posthumously. But it is worth noting. It's an incredible scientific achievement and something that the world should be very grateful for.
I met Robert G Edwards when he was a professor at the University of Cambridge, in the Department of Physiology, where I did my Bachelor of Medical Science degree under the guidance of Professor Abigail Fowden. I did some research in fetal physiology, and I went to the clinic where the IVF procedure was first undertaken. It was a great privilege to meet an extraordinary giant in this area of scientific endeavour.
I'd also like to note that there was some incredible work undertaken here by Carl Wood, who has now passed on but was known to my parents. He went through medical school with my father. I'd also like to note the wonderful work undertaken by Professor Alan Trounson, who I acknowledged in a speech in the House earlier this week. He has been awarded an AO this year for his work in embryo research and fertilisation and, more recently, stem cell research. I note that Robert G Edwards was on the Daily Telegraph's list of 100 greatest living geniuses in 2007. Such was the remarkable feat achieved in the work that he and his team undertook to help those who were having to deal with incredibly difficult times.
Australians deserve to experience the great joy of parenthood, and that's why the Morrison government is making significant investments in helping Australian couples start families using IVF. There's been a significant investment in funding, including in the Medical Research Future Fund grant of $4.6 million for the establishment of the YourIVFSuccess website earlier this year. This website is incredibly important for helping individuals gain access to the success estimator tool. It also provides independent and impartial information for families. I commend the government for its work in this area.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Bird ): There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
BILLS
Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (12:27): Let me begin by commending my friend the outstanding member for Moreton for tabling the Family Law Amendment (A Step Towards a Safer Family Law System) Bill 2020 and for his work as a member of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Family Law System.
On Thursday 20 February 2020, the entire nation was shaken to its core by the brutal murder of Hannah Clarke and her three children, Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey. In the days after their murders, I rose in this very chamber and said that the things that are happening in our streets are everybody's nightmare and they are everybody's business to fix. There were a lot of promises made by this Morrison government in the wake of Hannah's murder, but so far only the member for Moreton has had the spine to listen to the cries for help from Australian women and to stand up and take action. While the member for Moreton was drafting this private member's bill to protect children from being manipulated and spending time with abusive family members, the Morrison government was busy dismantling the only specialised court in this country with the expertise to deal with difficult family law matters. The abolition of the specialised Family Court is a stain on the Morrison government, and it really removes any credibility that they claim to have on being about family values.
There is a wide misconception that equal shared parental responsibility means equal shared care—that is, that the parents will spend equal time with their children. This misconception sets up false expectations that parents have a right to guaranteed equal time with their children. This bill would remove section 61DA of the Family Law Act, which provides a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility in parenting matters.
This bill is just a small piece of the huge puzzle in our mission to eradicate domestic violence from Australia, but it is a really important piece that we need to continue pushing for. It's too late, of course, to save Hannah's life and the lives of her children, but this bill would save the lives of countless other women and their children who find themselves in similar circumstances.
There is no denying that our family law system is broken and desperately needs fixing. I have spoken to my local community centres, who are absolutely bursting at the seams trying to keep up with northsiders who are currently experiencing domestic violence. It has gotten so much worse since the pandemic set in. I recently spoke to another community organisation that did food runs during the COVID lockdowns as an excuse—just so that they could continue to keep in contact with the women and children who were experiencing domestic violence. Northside Connect, in Nundah, had to put on an extra staff member to assist their dedicated family lawyer because, out of the pandemic, her workload had become so big it was too difficult for one person to manage. SANDBAG, in Sandgate, has processed over 200 police referrals for domestic violence counselling. They are well on their way to tripling the number of domestic violence referrals they received last year—triple, in one year. They have over 80 women on their waitlist for counselling. These women are going to have to wait six months to receive any kind of counselling support because they just do not have enough federal funding to hire staff at the moment.
Can you imagine building up the courage to leave a violent relationship and then being told you will need to wait six months to receive any kind of counselling to help you move forward? We know that, when these women leave, they have already spent months, if not years, building themselves up. When they leave, they are at breaking point. That is when they need the most assistance, and we know from cases like Hannah's that that is when they are at the most risk of violence themselves. And yet despite urgings from MPs like the member for Morton and me, and despite a number of parliamentary debates on this issue, we have nothing constructive by way of legislative reform coming out of this government and we have nothing meaningful coming forward by way of financial support for these initiatives.
On 5 May this year I peacefully walked through Sandgate with other 4017 locals to send a clear message that domestic surveillance is not tolerated in our community. The Peaceful Walk in Sandgate is one of the outstanding events in the calendar out of the Einbunpin Lagoon area. The Queensland Police support us; they do absolutely everything; they finance it. SANDBAG, one of the best institutions on the north side, leads it. Ordinary northsiders come together to say, 'Not now, not ever.'
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended from 12:33 to 16:00
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Renewable Energy
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:00): You can get a lot done when you work together, and that is what the Senate has done this week. When we shared power last time, the Greens secured the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. We did it by working together with Labor and the Independents. We set up an organisation that fast-tracked renewable energy in this country and helped us make the shift to a clean energy future. The Liberals tried to abolish ARENA. We stopped them by working together. Then the Liberals tried to say that coal and gas were renewable energies and to use ARENA to give public money to coal and gas corporations, many of whom pay absolutely no tax. By working together last night, the Senate stopped them. Public money should be going to schools, hospitals and renewables, not to coal and gas corporations that pay no tax. This is a sign of things to come.
If 828 people had voted differently at the last election, the Morrison government would not be a majority government, so we are only a few hundred votes away from kicking this terrible government out and having the Greens hold the balance of power. If we hold the balance of power, we will push the next government to go further and faster on the climate crisis and to ensure that we have more money for renewable energy and that public money goes to stopping the climate crisis, not making it worse. The message to people after this week in parliament is that your vote is powerful. We are a few hundred votes away from kicking out this terrible government and giving the Greens the balance of power.
Member for Riverina
Ms BELL (Moncrieff) (16:01): I rise to acknowledge and thank the former Deputy Prime Minister for his service not only to our country during its most trying time but to my electorate of Moncrieff and the Gold Coast more broadly. He visited Moncrieff soon after the last election in 2019 to announce funding for light rail from Broadbeach to Burleigh. He returned a further five times to announce various infrastructure projects on the Gold Coast, including the upgrade of the M1 in the member for McPherson's electorate.
I thank him for his support of the City Heart Taskforce that I convened in May last year. Since COVID-19 struck he has zoomed in for two of our meetings and updated executive members, including the general manager of the Gold Coast Airport, on various aviation measures. As recently as last month the member for Riverina visited the Gold Coast. We met and talked about the $1.2 billion aviation package that kept airlines flying in this country and assisted the Gold Coast greatly.
As a former Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development his portfolio covered RDA Gold Coast. I'm proud of the work that the City Heart Taskforce executive member and Gold Coast director Estella Rodighiero has produced with her Industry 4.0 initiative and the work that has highlighted the opportunities within the Regional Biomedical Supply Chain Development Project. It was great to welcome Estella and the chairman, Nick Scott, to Canberra just last week. We met with the former Deputy Prime Minister. I wish him and his family—Catherine and his three children—all the best for their future.
Fraser Electorate: Infrastructure
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (16:03): The 27th National General Assembly of the Australian Local Government Association is concluding in Canberra today. It has been a pleasure to meet with the leaders of the two local government areas overlapping my seat of Fraser, including the mayor of Maribyrnong, Councillor Michael Clarke, and the mayor and deputy mayor of Brimbank, Councillors Ranka Rasic and Jasmine Nguyen. Their visit to Canberra has provided a welcome opportunity to discuss our shared commitment to the communities of Melbourne's west. We know that our communities and the people we represent are crying out for the Morrison government to properly invest in the infrastructure that our rapidly growing part of Melbourne needs. The Andrews Labor government in Victoria has led the way in removing level crossings, making record investment in schools, and building the Joan Kirner Women's and Children's Hospital in Sunshine and the new Footscray Hospital.
An Albanese Labor government will invest $15 billion to rebuild our industrial base and to restore highly skilled manufacturing in areas like Sunshine. We'll deliver better and more affordable child care, whilst this government believes that child care just discourages women from staying in their homes. We'll fix aged care, which this government has ignored for eight long years. We'll invest in affordable homes for essential workers. Unfortunately, we've seen this week that the Morrison-Joyce government is more interested in itself than governing for the residents of Fraser, Brimbank and Maribyrnong. It's time for the Morrison-Joyce government to step up and invest in the west with its many needs and rapidly growing population.
Medicines Australia
XLH Awareness Day
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (16:04): If there is a hero in 2021, it is medicine. If we can open one day, it will be thanks to vaccines. Those who, unfortunately, get COVID have a better chance of survival than last year thanks to medical breakthroughs in treatments. Our pharma companies are working overtime to get us back to normal. At the same time, medicines are still saving us from the thousands of other conditions that we have had for centuries. In this context, today in the Great Hall, PharmAus is taking place, Medicines Australia's annual day on the hill. I am, of course, biased. 'Pill Hill' is in my electorate and most pharma companies reside in Bennelong. It is one of the biggest employers locally and biggest exporters. We can always be thankful for medicines adding years and quality of life to millions of Australians, and this is a great day to remember that.
I would also like to touch on a more specific medicine. Today is XLH Awareness Day. Earlier I was happy to hold an event to recognise this with my co-chair in the Friends of Medicine, the member for Macarthur. XLH is a genetic disorder leading to bow legs, rickets, chronic pain and other conditions. We're making huge gains in the area of genetic medicines and I hope we can soon help the thousands of patients who need medicines to treat this debilitating condition.
Macarthur Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (16:06): Macarthur is home to some really remarkable individuals who contribute greatly to our society. Some of these wonderful members of our community were recently recognised in the Queen's Birthday Honours, and I want to take the time today to congratulate these incredible Macarthur locals. First of all, I want to congratulate Mr Paul Sweeney, a recipient of the Australian Fire Service Medal for his many years of service, and Detective Inspector Glenn Brown, a recipient of the Australian Police medal. Thank you for your services in our emergency services and congratulations on your most worthy recognition.
A number of local residents received a Medal of the Order of Australia for their significant contributions to our society. Firstly, I would like to recognise the late Allan Connolly. Alan was a fixture in the local cricketing community, particularly with the Camden-Campbelltown Ghosts Cricket club. He did a fantastic job and was loved by all. He was well regarded by everyone else in our sporting community and sorely missed. The posthumous award is most worthy. Secondly, Colin Elliott, OAM, received his award for services to the community of Campbelltown. We all ought to be grateful for his tireless work with UnitingCare in particular and his work supporting refugees. Thirdly, Mal Frouin, OAM, is a good friend of mine. It was wonderful to see her recognised for her work in the Pacific communities in New South Wales. Lastly, Catherine West, OAM, received her award for services to the medical research community. There could be no better servant of Macarthur.
Congratulations to one and all, and thank you for your service.
Lyne Electorate: Infrastructure
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (16:07): Gloucester, Stroud and the small villages surrounding them are benefiting from our government's investment. Bucketts Way, which is the spine of these towns and villages, already has $21 million worth of works happening, or going to happen, improving the safety and reliability of the important trade route. I am pleased to report that working with MidCoast Council engineers we are planning a further $20 million of works. In Gloucester, Queen Street has received an upgrade thanks to the Roads to Recovery program. I'm pleased to see important investment is coming through the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program rolling out on the ground.
Gloucester Netball president Sally Maslen and all the teams and volunteers were so excited to receive $300,000 for court resealing and the construction of new club amenities. In April, I met with Rodney Somerville, Harry Clark, Wendy and John Hughes and Jamie Searle, from Cricket, Twilight Football, Rugby Union and Tri Challenge, to announce $250,000 for a new canteen and storage facilities at the Gloucester Recreation Ground No. 1. And, in Stroud, local councillor Karen Hutchinson is always knocking on my door. I'm pleased to announce that, after negotiations with Regional Broadcasters Australia, the government has reached in-principle agreement to commence upgrades for improved television reception at Stroud, Girvan, Allworth and Booral.
While I'm talking Stroud— (Time expired)
Richmond Electorate: Schools
Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond) (16:09): I rise to update the House on the appalling decision by the New South Wales Liberal-National government to close four public schools in Murwillumbah and amalgamate them into one mega school. This decision was made without any meaningful consultation with the local community, the P&C, students or the local New South Wales Teachers Federation. In fact, the New South Wales education minister, Sarah Mitchell, has gone to great lengths to actually exclude the community and she has treated the people of Murwillumbah with absolute contempt.
There are protocols in place when the closure or amalgamation of a school is being considered, and these include forming a schools consultative group. This has not happened. Our community wants to know why the minister has failed to follow the proper procedures. Further, the minister may have in fact breached the requirements under section 28 of the New South Wales Education Act. The act requires a review committee to be formed within 21 days of the announcement of a school closure. This has not happened. The minister has an obligation to consult on this decision. She has a moral obligation, a procedural obligation and a legal obligation. The New South Wales education minister, Sarah Mitchell, must explain why she has not fulfilled her legal obligation in this case. My message to the minister is very clear: stop these plans now and do your duty and consult. My message to the Murwillumbah community is very clear as well: I will continue to raise these issues every day in every forum because I'm always on your side.
Child Exploitation
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (16:10): Today the Parliamentary Friends of Combatting Child Exploitation, along with the Minister for Home Affairs, Karen Andrews, and along with the Commissioner of the AFP, Reece Kershaw, launched in Parliament House a new series called Closing the Net. It's a new podcast, a 10-part series. The podcast has interviews from people who are involved in tracking and countering child exploitation, from law enforcement, from government and from not-for-profits who have experienced this and work with survivors of child exploitation. It seeks to have a conversation with all Australians, including parents, about the insidious nature of child exploitation. It's not something any of us like to talk about. But those who prey on our kids rely on our disgust at not wanting to have this conversation, so that is why we need to have it.
A lot of parents don't realise the insidious nature of child exploitation. Over 50 per cent of parents don't talk to their kids being safe online. You wouldn't let your kid go to a playground and mix with people you don't know without supervision, yet too many parents, through no fault of their own, are letting their kids online without any supervision or protection or a discussion about some of the dangers that poses. So please log on, listen to the podcast—get it where you get all your good podcasts—and encourage others to listen to it and have a conversation with their kids.
Sickle Cell Disease
Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) (16:12): World Sickle Cell Day was on 19 June, with this year's focus on the need to include newborn screening for sickle cell disease in Australia's healthcare system. I'd like to acknowledge the work of the Australian Sickle Cell Advocacy group, and I welcome my constituent Agnes Nsofwa, who is ASCA's founder and executive director and is here in Parliament House today as part of her advocacy on this issue. I'm a proud patron of this organisation, and I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate Agnes on her tireless efforts and dedication, which has seen some welcome progress in recent times. ASCA's work towards connecting a network across the country and with their international counterparts has made very real headway as it reached a certain frequency among particular ethnic groups. It's a major issue predominantly among the African community locally and across the world.
A couple of weeks ago the Australian government Department of Health announced that sickle cell disease has become one of the nominated conditions proposed for inclusion in newborn bloodspot screening, the NBS program. While this is a welcome first step towards having the NBS for sickle cell disease implemented in Australia, I want to today call on the government to fully implement its inclusion with funding and implementation in states and territories across Australia.
Western Australia: Business Regulation
Mr IRONS (Swan) (16:13): Mr Deputy Speaker Zimmerman, as you know, Swan is in Western Australia, and Western Australia is a parochial state, but Western Australians are no fools. Legislation that's before the House at the moment has seen the Morrison government come together with state and territory leaders to support green and red tape reduction. The question is: when will the Labor opposition agree to support this reduction of green and red tape to strengthen our business investments in WA?
Since 2019 the Morrison government has committed an additional $54.5 million over three years to reduce unnecessary delays and speed up approvals. As agreed by the national cabinet, the immediate priority is to streamline approval processes. We need to remove red and green tape, which doesn't serve the interests of the environment or the interests of business, and we need to speed up approvals for job-creating projects. Further delay will cost millions of dollars, with the Minerals Council estimating major greenfield projects losing $46 million per month in Western Australia.
So, with $140 billion in the project pipeline across the WA mining and resources sector, it is essential, now more than ever, that the Australian regulatory settings remain competitive and effective in attracting and securing investment and the benefits that come with those investments. Even Mark McGowan has said his government proposed changes to this bill 18 months ago. WA Labor is on board. So my message to the opposition leader is: don't come to WA; don't go to the Pilbara next week, playing dress-ups, wearing a hard hat and hi-vis, and expect that the Western Australians are going to be fooled that you support the mining industry.
Child Care
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (16:15): In 2021, it is almost unbelievable that I have to stand here to condemn members of the Morrison government for judging and shaming Australian families for trying to balance work and family life—that members of the coalition told their party room they were concerned that spending on child care might lead women to 'outsource parenting'. Australian families do not need the moral judgements of this government. The reality is that most families in Australia rely on double incomes to be able to raise their families, and they deserve to have a genuine choice about how they balance work and family and to be supported in that choice—not judged by this out-of-touch, out-of-date Morrison government.
The truth is: under the Morrison government, child care is increasingly unaffordable. Only Labor has a plan to truly fix our childcare system. Under Labor's policy, 97 per cent of Australian families will be better off. We will task the Productivity Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the sector, to implement a universal, 90 per cent subsidy for all families. That's because Labor supports Australian women and Australian families to have genuine choice in how they balance work and family because we know that affordable child care is good for women, it's good for parents and it's good for children. All the evidence tells us that affordable, accessible child care benefits children. I will always be on the side of families and affordable child care— (Time expired)
Refugee Week
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (16:16): It's Refugee Week, and my region is a very welcoming place. No matter your background, if you come to live with us you'll find a community, and more—you'll find a home.
There is no better example of this than the hundreds of Sudanese and, more recently, Yazidi people who've come to make a home for themselves amongst us in the Toowoomba region. Our efforts in safely settling these families saw us proclaimed a Refugee Welcome Zone in 2013, and we've grown to become the third-largest refugee resettlement area in all of Queensland.
This is, once again, Toowoomba acting as a leading light for other regional communities, as we have with our economic recovery, and it's a story I want to share this Refugee Week. It's a story that's made possible by this government working hand in hand with our council, community organisations and churches, who form a crucial part of our new arrivals' support network.
Mayor Paul Antonio joined me here in Canberra this week to continue that collaboration, sharing with Minister Alex Hawke the challenges currently facing the Yazidi people as they adjust to life in Australia. He also spoke about the emerging situation where former refugees are choosing to move to the Toowoomba region from where they originally settled, to be closer to family and to access the services and supports that we've become well known for—the supports that can help people to learn English, to integrate with the broader community and to contribute to our economic growth through meaningful employment.
I'm proud that we've fostered this reputation. I'm proud that we're a city of choice for those refugees. And I want to congratulate our community on being such a welcoming place.
National Security
Mr JOSH WILSON (Fremantle) (16:18): Last week, the prosecution of Witness K came to an end. Mercifully, it resulted in a non-custodial sentence. Witness K was charged with conspiring to reveal classified information in relation to espionage that Australia carried out against the government of Timor-Leste, hoping to get the better of that poor country in relation to gas-field development. It was shameful conduct and it resulted in a judgement against Australia in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Australia had played a key role in supporting Timor-Leste's independence. It's hard to understand how we then engaged in underhand conduct against a fledgling nation that, to this day, faces enormous developmental challenges.
While the trial of Witness K is over, there is a case proceeding against his lawyer, Mr Bernard Collaery, whose office was raided in 2013, before this government decided in 2018 that he would be prosecuted. Bernard Collaery is a great Australian. He served as Attorney-General of the ACT. He has been a committed and longstanding supporter of the people of Timor-Leste, and he has been subject to the pressures and costs involved in being under investigation for years. He is 74. This government has not explained any purpose or any good that is served by proceeding against a man who has shown incredible courage in staying the course of principled conduct. It has cost the taxpayer millions of dollars. Enough is enough. Now that there has been a judgement and sentence in the case against Witness K, it's time to resolve the proceedings against Mr Collaery.
She Sheds
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (16:19): We all know of the wonderful work of Men's Sheds and the positive impacts they have had on communities across the country. With Men's Sheds growing in popularity, one local woman in Northern Tasmania looked around her and wondered why there wasn't something similar available for women too. And so the SheShed was born. It is the creation of retired teacher Allison Bassano. The SheShed began a few years ago when Allison sold her home and purchased a smaller one with a shed in order to bring to life her vision of establishing a safe place for women. Any woman is welcome to drop into the SheShed, where those who stop by can take part in art, crafts, gardening or conversations. Allison has said:
The problem for most women is that when they're at home there is a constant demand for their attention, women are always multi-tasking and need to 'chill out'. On top of that many women are living in, or have escaped from, stressful home circumstances and need the company of others who understand.
Just recently, my friend and now member for Windermere in the state upper house, Nick Duigan, called me to let me know that after visiting the shed he noticed the need for a proper gazebo for the backyard. After discussions with upper house member Jo Palmer and Senator Askew in the other place, we provided a donation to the SheShed with the initial idea of getting someone in to build a gazebo. We were all thrilled when one of the regular attendees of the shed, Holly, took it upon herself to design and build the entire structure, which has made the project all the more meaningful to Allison and the shed community.
Child Care
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (16:21): It was shocking today to hear that members of this government were concerned about affordable child care potentially leading women to 'outsource parenting'. What year are we in? It is the year 2021 and we are hearing about ideas from the 1950s. Australian families do not need to be shamed by this government. They need support with the ridiculously expensive childcare costs, which have increased by 35 per cent in the eight long years this government has been in power. Here in Canberra we have some of the most expensive child care in the country. This is a really big issue for families and it's a really big issue for women, because the fact is it is they who bear most of that cost and decide how much they can work or if they can afford to increase their work hours or go back to work.
I think we need an Australia where both parents are better supported to make decisions about work and family, and affordable child care is central to that. Under Labor's policy 97 per cent of families would be better off. Under the Liberals' policy fewer families would be better off. In fact, 86 per cent of families would be better off under our policy than theirs. But with the division in the government's ranks, I wouldn't even trust them to deliver this policy. We've seen the Deputy Prime Minister change last week and the government tearing itself apart over net zero. What other antiquated, out-of-touch ideas are happening over there that are going to mean that families can't access child care? (Time expired)
Great Barrier Reef
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (16:22): The claim about outsourcing parenting is false, as the other chamber has heard. Earlier this week UNESCO's China-chaired World Heritage Committee proposed listing Australia's Great Barrier Reef as 'in danger'. This bizarre decision was made without consultation or any scientific foundation, and it completely blindsided those who have actually seen the reef, including the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, who opposed the 'in danger' listing. It's one thing for a nameless, faceless UN committee to make decisions which directly affect our natural tourism assets, but for that committee to be headed by communist China brings about a new level of hypocrisy.
The Great Barrier Reef is fine, but I wonder how 'in danger' Mischief Reef is after China pumped enough sand on it to reclaim 1,379 acres of land to build a huge military base in the South China Sea. I bet Subi Reef is thriving under hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete in runways and communication towers. Did China submit an environmental impact statement to the Philippines, given that that reef is part of its continental shelf? But that's not the only military base built on a reef that China killed: Fiery Cross Reef had 27 acres of land reclaimed; Hughes Reef had 19 acres of land reclaimed; Cuarteron Reef had 56 acres of land reclaimed; and Johnson South Reef had 27 acres of land reclaimed. The list goes on and on. China have no right to lecture us on environmental management because, if our reef were in their hands, it would be the largest military base on the planet.
NAIDOC Week
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:24): In Macquarie we see NAIDOC week as an opportunity to heal, and there is much healing to be done. Author of People of the River, Grace Karskens, describes the first recorded massacre of Aboriginal people by the military at the Battle of Richmond Hill in the Hawkesbury in 1795 as 'a surprise attack in darkness during which seven or eight people were shot down and everyone else fled in terror'. This is a history that should be told, and these are injustices that we need to acknowledge. The NAIDOC event organised by Merana in Richmond Park will as always be a beautiful bringing together of communities to heal.
In the Blue Mountains, as part of the Blue Mountains Police Area Command's recognition of NAIDOC week, the Aboriginal flag that I was privileged to provide will be placed in the foyer of Katoomba Police Station, a powerful symbol for our First Peoples of respect and recognition. Deadlee Gap Cultural Cafe in Lawson will, with COVID restrictions, also mark the week.
Reconciliation has many steps. The NAIDOC theme of healing country speaks to the need for substantive reform to resolve outstanding injustices. When Gough Whitlam returned the land to the Gurindji people in 1975, that was a step. When Paul Keating admitted, 'We committed the murders,' in his Redfern speech in 1992, that was a step. When Kevin Rudd apologised to the stolen generation in 2008, that was a step. An Albanese Labor government adopting the Uluru Statement from the Heart will also be a step. (Time expired)
Queensland: Olympic and Paralympic Games
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:26): The adventure sports facility for Redlands Coast could be an incredible piece in the Olympics 2032 puzzle. I'm delighted that my city is leading the way with this canoe slalom proposal, including a FINA-standard 50-metre Olympic pool. But Redlands can do even more.
The famous Leslie Harrison Dam can also be a rowing precinct. I know Rowing Queensland are currently deciding where rowing and still-water canoeing should go; I reckon right next to each other, and I reckon at Redland Coast. Well done to Mayor Karen Williams for making sure that we are a slice in the pie of a potential positive decision by the OIC come July this year.
I'll tell you what this brings: it brings legacy benefits for my city and it offers what is an important sport that's been offered since 1932. It was originally on flat water and is now on white water. Of course, you mix with that the emergency services requirements for swiftwater rescue, all of which can be provided. It's a fabulous opportunity for our important Moreton Bay city. It means that we're part of the area that includes Chandler, which obviously has the cycling facility, and we have the opportunity to use the Leslie Harrison Dam, which has a two-kilometre Olympic option, in both directions, to make it almost weatherproof. So I encourage Rowing Queensland, when it comes to digging up and creating a new rowing facility from scratch, to think about Tingalpa Reservoir and Leslie Harrison Dam.
Lyons Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (16:27): I rise to commend and congratulate two members of my electorate named in the Queen's Birthday Honours List.
First, I'd like to congratulate Mr Noel Beven AM of Campania. Noel was recognised for his significant service to horticulture, to agriculture and to rural youth. Mr Beven has worked as a field officer for Extractas Bioscience, formerly known as Tasmanian Alkaloids, for 30 years, coordinating growers in southern Tasmania to grow poppy crops, which have been so important for medicine worldwide. But it is his time working with Tasmania's rural youth that's had the greatest community impact. He's played a massive role in the development of Rural Youth Tasmania and at our state's flagship event, Agfest, which is proudly held in my electorate every May. Both are staples of regional Tasmania and my electorate in particular, so congratulations to Noel Beven.
I'd also like to congratulate James Wilcox OAM, who was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for his service to the Longford community and to Rotary. James has served as a Rotary Australia director since 2019, was the district governor of Rotary Tasmania in 2012-13 and has served more than 20 years as secretary with Rotary Longford. James is a popular community member, with strong ties to the Longford events committee and Longford Football Club, among others. He's another worthy recipient. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to both James Wilcox and Noel Beven. (Time expired)
Longman Volunteer Recognition Awards
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (16:29): Volunteers are the unsung heroes in every community, and my electorate of Longman is no different. They give up their time, much of it on weekends or during the night hours. They turn up regardless of the weather, all because they care about our community. That's why it was a pleasure to acknowledge many of the volunteers in Longman when I recently hosted the Longman Volunteer Recognition Awards. The awards, in the main, were handed out to well-deserving individuals, but today I want to give a shout-out to an organisation who was a recipient of one of these awards.
The Caboolture Snakes Junior Rugby League Club would not survive without the 140 volunteers who turn up every week during footy season. These mums, dads and other community minded citizens ensure our budding champions have all they need to enjoy the game they love. The coaches, managers, sports trainers, jersey washers and canteen staff all play their part in this huge club, which has well over 500 registered players. The number of players has grown enormously this year, and it is a testament to the volunteers and the excellent culture the club has developed. This growth has the Moreton Bay Regional Council investigating ways in which to enlarge the facilities to accommodate the recent and future growth. So today I want to say thank you to all the wonderful volunteers at the Caboolture Snakes Junior Rugby League Club. Go the Snakes!
Anderson, Mr Tom
Mr DAVID SMITH (Bean) (16:30): I would like to take this opportunity to thank the outgoing chair of the Weston Creek Community Council, Mr Tom Anderson, for his outstanding community service. He has served on the council's committee for the past 14 years and was chair for the last 11 of those years. Tom's story is a classic Canberran one. He moved to Canberra from Wollongong back in 1968 for what he intended to be three months working in the Australian Public Service. He met his wife, Margaret, while playing cricket for a local club, when he was asked to help her score the game. As Tom explained, 'We sat down together and that was it.' They have now been married for 47 years. They settled in Weston Creek, in the suburb of Chapman, in 1973, and they have lived there ever since. Tom's initial three-month stint in the Public Service in Canberra became 41 years of dedicated service, including in the role of DLO for four ministers in federal governments. He retired in 2008, content with what he described as a fortunate career.
The Weston Creek Community Council have advocated for much-needed services and facilities for their suburbs and residents. Tom has seen huge growth in the region over the term of his involvement and has been instrumental in its development. He has always been someone I could count on for information and support in identifying community needs in the Bean electorate. Tom should be proud of his efforts. On behalf of the Bean electorate, I would like to thank him for his efforts and wish him well. (Time expired)
Motor Neurone Disease
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (16:31): I would like to take this time to speak about a sobering yet important issue, motor neurone disease. Motor neurone disease is an extraordinarily horrific disease that slowly debilitates its sufferers as they experience muscle wastage that eventually leads to an inability to speak, to move, to swallow and, finally, to breathe. As a speech pathologist, I have vivid memories of helping sufferers to combat this insidious disease. This process of muscle wastage can often take years to debilitate, or it can aggressively move through symptoms. This devastating neurological disease affects around 2,000 Australians every year. There is no known cure for motor neurone disease at this time, but, by raising awareness of the horrible disease, we can move closer towards discovering a life-saving cure for those in need. That's why, on Monday this week, I chose to wear a blue cornflower to raise awareness of the cause and to show my support for those who are suffering right now. I hope many of my colleagues on all sides of the chamber will take the time to reflect on this illness and show support in all capacities possible.
Dobell Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (16:33): There are many people in the electorate I represent who make the coast a special place, but today I want to recognise a couple of standouts, locals who have been recognised in the Queen's Birthday honours list this year. First, I'd like to recognise my friend Bob Wilson, who has received an Order of Australia Medal for his service to local veterans. Bob is a member, and the longstanding president, of the Toukley RSL sub-branch. During his many years of service, he has helped and supported countless veterans, especially with his work in securing funding to upgrade the local cenotaph. His wife, Narelle, also makes a mean brownie.
Next is Peter Rubin. Peter has also received an Order of Australia Medal for his outstanding work with local organisations. Peter has worked tirelessly for Rotary clubs on the coast for over 30 years, donating his own time and equipment to nearly every club event. I first worked with Peter on the Wyong Regional Chamber of Commerce in 2008.
Third is Karen Jones, who has been awarded the Public Service Medal for her work in education. Karen has changed the lives of so many students in her 30 years of teaching, particularly through her work with special needs and Aboriginal education programs. She was also the first Aboriginal woman to be elected to a senior directors role in the Department of Education.
Finally, Anthony Younglove has received the Emergency Services Medal, a well-deserved honour for someone who has dedicated his life to making our community a safer place.
I am proud to be a part of a community that's home to such dedicated and hardworking people as Bob, Peter, Karen and Anthony, and I'm glad to be honouring their efforts today.
Reid Electorate: Tamil Study Centre
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (16:35): Today I rise to commend the Tamil Study Centre in Homebush. The centre was first established in 1987 and represents the deep roots of our Tamil-speaking community in Reid. The Tamil Study Centre teaches students—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Proceedings suspended from 16:35 to 16:54
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 13 May, the time for members' statements has concluded.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Education
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (16:54): I move:
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the bicentenary of Catholic education in Australia;
(2) notes that:
(a) the first official Catholic school was founded by Fr John Therry in Parramatta in 1820;
(b) Catholic schools have educated millions of Australians over the past 200 years; and
(c) today, Catholic schools are the largest provider of schooling in Australia (outside of government) educating one in five Australian school-age children; and
(3) congratulates Catholic schools and their teachers, staff and students on this incredible achievement.
It's with great pleasure that I rise today to acknowledge the bicentenary of Catholic education in Australia, and I'd like to acknowledge some visitors here today as well. I'd like to welcome Greg Whitby, Executive Director at the Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta; Elizabeth Scully, communications manager; and Geoff Officer, the chief of operations and finance. Greg himself is a graduate of St Monica's Primary School in North Parramatta, which has been educating local students since way back in 1892—1892! How amazing is that? It's great that they're here when the Australian parliament acknowledges and celebrates the bicentenary of Catholic education in Australia.
It all started back in Parramatta in 1820—everything starts in Parramatta, it seems!—when Father John Therry and George Marley founded Australia's first Catholic school, on Hunter Street. George Marley was a bookkeeper and a former convict, and Father John was one of Australia's first official priests. They set up a school to provide educational opportunities for Catholic children. However, just as they do today, the school welcomed children from other faiths. Seven of the 31 boys and girls who made up the first class weren't Catholics; the others, of course, were.
The arrival of the Sisters of Mercy in Parramatta in 1888 was another important milestone. For those who haven't met the Sisters of Mercy in Parramatta, they're as extraordinary today as they were, no doubt, in 1888; an amazing, extraordinary group of women. The sisters established Our Lady of Mercy College Parramatta in 1889 and went on to establish schools across Sydney, including St Monica's Primary School at North Parramatta. Two hundred years later, there are 1,755 schools across the country that stem from that first one, with 777,000 students and more than 100,000 teachers and staff.
Across Australia, Catholic schools educate around one in five Australian children, but in Western Sydney it's one in four. They are an absolutely central part of our lives in Western Sydney. The diocese of Parramatta stretches from Dundas Valley in my electorate, north to Richmond, west to Katoomba and south to Luddenham, and is home to 80 schools, 43½ thousand students and more than 5,000 staff. What an extraordinary contribution that Catholic schools make. Two of the schools in my electorate, St Patricks Parramatta and Parramatta Marist High School, trace their origins back to that very first school on Hunter Street. For most of the 200 years, Catholic schools have been built and staffed without support from government, but that changed with some Commonwealth grants in the sixties and seventies. Then in 1973 the Whitlam government introduced needs based funding for non-government schools, which continues to this day.
In 2009 I was incredibly proud to attend the opening of a new school in my electorate—home to so many historic schools—the Mother Teresa Primary School at Westmead, an extraordinary school. It was a great day. I visit so many of the schools in my electorate, and I always find a group of teachers and parents absolutely committed to the education of their children and, more than that, innovation in the education of their children. When the Building the Education Revolution funding became available for schools to build school halls, I was astonished to find that virtually every Catholic school in the electorate already had a plan for one—already knew where they wanted to go, already knew how they wanted to change the nature of their classrooms, already had it all laid out—and then when the money became available they leapt in and built these extraordinary spaces where we see children learning every day. You'll also see the schools in the Parramatta electorate already trying to ensure that, when a child first enters an education environment, even in child care, they can stay in the same place through school all the way through; whole-of-life learning. They are incredibly innovative organisations. It's been an absolute pleasure to work with them as I have for so many years.
Can I also acknowledge Christine Howe, the deputy executive director at Catholic Education Diocese of Parramatta, who started her teaching career at Parramatta Marist in 1984 and was recently awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to secondary education in the 2021 Queen's birthday honours. In closing, I want to congratulate all the Catholic schools on what is now their third century. They've entered their third century! Congratulations to their teachers, staff and students on what is an incredible achievement. I know we will see many more great achievements in years to come.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:59): I second the motion. I'm very happy to speak to this excellent motion from the member for Parramatta and acknowledge the presence of several officials from the Diocese of Parramatta, particularly Geoff Officer and Greg Whitby, who are both friends of long standing.
Catholic education is fundamental to the moral ecology of our nation. It wasn't enlightened legislators that first decided it was important to teach Australia's children to read and write, to learn about science and history, regardless of their heritage and background. It was priests, religious orders and lay people in churches. They're the ones who first sparked the idea of education for all children in the colonies and who carried out the pioneering work to begin what has become our education system. For decades before public education existed anywhere in this country, we had church schools, charity schools, which taught children from all walks of life. That legacy has not only been formational in Australia's history but continues to serve the Australian community today, with the incredible service Catholic schools provide to families and communities. Today, one in five Australian children is educated at one of the 1,755 Catholic schools around our country. Catholic schools are spread from near where they began, near my community, to some of the most remote parts of the country, such as Gibb River in the Kimberley and Thursday Island in the Torres Strait.
Catholic education began in 1820, when the newly arrived Irish priest Father John Therry started a school with just 31 students in Parramatta. Father John Therry was born in Cork and arrived as one of the first Catholic priests to be permitted to serve in the colony. These were sectarian times. He established St Mary's Cathedral and was one of the founding Catholics and agitators for civil liberties in this country. He built the first school, as the member for Parramatta said, at Parramatta. That was one of many that would follow as he sought to build the future church that could educate children in the faith of their parents who were arriving in the colony, many as convicts from Ireland. The legacy of this work continues to be steward by remarkable men and women, lay and ordained—teachers, administrators, priests, nuns and family members—who continue to invest and serve for the future.
My electorate is home to a number of fantastic Catholic schools. In the Parramatta diocese, Marian Catholic College was established in 1988 with just 53 students but today has 1,028 students. St Madeleine's Primary School, which began one year earlier, with 78 students, now has 337 students. In the Broken Bay diocese are St Bernard's Catholic primary school and St Agatha's. St Bernard's has operated since 1972, when it was established by the Sisters of Mercy. It teaches 180 children. St Agatha's serves 282 students and is the oldest Catholic school in my electorate, established in 1954 by the Sisters of the Good Samaritan. But it had previously been a parish school at Yarrara Road, Thornleigh, from 1928. Beyond this there are four Catholic independent schools in my electorate that reflect something of the spirit of the early Catholic schools established by motivated lay people in religious orders: Oakhill College, which is the largest Catholic school in New South Wales, Redfield College, Tangara School for Girls and Mount St Benedict College.
I want to acknowledge the principals of each of these Catholic schools: Jane Campbell, Gill Austin, Michael Hopkinson, Jeanette Black, Rita Sakr, Brother Steve Hogan and Matthew Aldous. I also want to acknowledge the outstanding diocese and directors of education serving in my electorate: Greg Whitby, who's here, and Danny Casey. I want to acknowledge some of the parent leaders in the school communities: Melissa Kremmer, Des McGurk, Melanie Lord, Peter Gaughan and Gary Doherty. I also want to acknowledge the teachers and administrators—too many to mention. These are people who continue to build the future in the way the Catholic education system has done for 200 years.
I can't imagine Australia without the contribution that Catholic schools make. I've personally been enriched by Catholic education in Australia. Before coming to this place, I had the great honour and pleasure of serving as a senior executive at the Australian Catholic University, the university that's the largest producer of teachers in this country. It's been a training ground for educators to fill many Catholic and other schools across Australia. I also served on a committee of the New South Wales Catholic Education Commission.
I want to express my gratitude to the Catholic Church and to the teachers, the families and the students at our Catholic schools for the important role they play in our education landscape. We often speak about the economic contribution made, the burden that doesn't have to fall on the state because of the initiative of faith based schools, particularly Catholic schools, in looking after the education of so many children. We're fortunate in this country in a way that few countries are to benefit from that service and to give families real choice for their children. I also want to say the contribution is so much more than just economic. The vision and values that sparked the education of children—convict children, Indigenous children, orphans and the children of settlers—continue to infuse Catholic schools today and influence and shape our communities in important ways.
The Parramatta diocese has said, 'Above all we celebrate all that unites us and we commit to a hope that defines us in living out God's love for one another.' To be defined by hope and living out love is a mission that will carry them well for the next century. (Time expired)
Mr BYRNE (Holt) (17:04): I rise also to support the member for Parramatta's motion that acknowledges the bicentenary of Catholic education in this country. Catholic schools have educated millions of Australians over the past 200 years, as said in the member's motion, and today Catholic schools are one of the largest providers of schooling, second only to government schools. I think Catholic schools educate about one in five Australian school-age children.
I also want to note that the national mass was celebrated simultaneously across Australia on the feast of Our Lady Help of Christians on Monday 24 May to mark the bicentenary of Catholic education in Australia. National Catholic Education Commission Executive Director Jacinta Collins said that the national mass was 'a highlight of the bicentenary year' and went on to say:
As a faith community, our National Mass to celebrate 200 years of Catholic education holds significant meaning …
I think the member for Parramatta and the member for Berowra have touched on the scale of Catholic education in Australia. It's quite unique in the world in terms of the service it provides. I think that, at the present period of time, the Catholic education sector serves over 770,000 students and employs over 100,000 staff in roughly 1,800 schools. The chair of the Bishops Commission for Catholic Education, Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher, said:
The bicentenary of Catholic education in Australia invites us to remember the past with gratitude, be inspired by that story in the present, and look forward with faith in the future.
He also said:
After two centuries of service, we in Catholic education are determined to make an even greater contribution to the lives of our young people, families, church and society.
And he congratulated the Catholic education sector on its 200th birthday.
Archbishop of Melbourne Peter Comensoli led a celebration of mass with more than 600 Catholic school students and teachers at St Patrick's Cathedral. One thing to note is something others have mentioned about the Catholic schools in their constituency. In my electorate of Holt we have seven wonderful Catholic schools that have delivered a profound contribution to our local community. These schools are St Agatha's Primary School in Cranbourne, St Francis de Sales Catholic primary school in Lynbrook, St Kevin's Primary School in Hampton Park, St Peter's College in Cranbourne and Cranbourne East, St Therese's Primary School in Cranbourne North, St Thomas the Apostle Catholic Primary School in Cranbourne East and Trinity Catholic Primary School in Narre Warren South.
I think there was some comment that was made about not only the presence of the schools and the education that they provide students but also the community good that's done by having these schools in our region, which I would completely agree with as someone who went through the Catholic education system as a student at a Christian Brothers college both in Kalgoorlie, in the far-flung regions of Western Australia, and also in Adelaide. I was fairly uniquely placed. I think the brothers and the poor teachers who had to teach me were uniquely placed as well! I can only say, having been through that and having put our two children through the schooling system, that we're very pleased that it served the purpose for which we sent them and I think my parents would have sent me, which was a faith based, values based education system that offers a comprehensive environment to develop the total person, not just educate a person.
I also wanted to say that, particularly when I went to the Christian Brothers College in Adelaide in the seventies, it was a tough period of time economically in Australia and in South Australia. One of the things I wanted to acknowledge before I move on to that particular story I wanted to tell was that, if you look at the diversity of people that actually attend Catholic schooling, you see something that's not fully appreciated by the community generally. When my children went to St Paul the Apostle South, there were children from 70 different nationalities that attended that school. In schools in my region it would be the same or more. People from every corner of the globe come and participate in the Catholic education system, and I think that's a wonderful thing, particularly with some of the churches—I note in particular St Thomas the Apostle in Cranbourne East, which is particularly that with the Sri Lankan community.
The last point I wanted to make about the economically difficult circumstances in the seventies. My mother—we were a single family then—could not afford to pay the school fees, so I went as a 14-year-old and spoke to the principal of the Christian Brothers College. He was a very formidable brother called Brother McApion. I basically said we couldn't do it. As a consequence of that conversation, I was awarded a scholarship on the spot and I was able to attend school without paying fees. There's a lot of work that's done by them, but I certainly want to thank the Christian Brothers College for that. Remember the people who can't afford the fees; they get taken care of. (Time expired)
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (17:09): I rise to speak in support of the member for Parramatta's motion. This year we celebrate the 200th anniversary of the establishment of Australia's first Catholic school. The school was founded by Irish Catholic priest John Cleary in October 1820, in Hunter Street Parramatta, just down the road from Bennelong, and taught just 31 students. Over the past two centuries, Catholic schools have become the largest non-government providers of schooling in Australia, with one in five school-age students attending a Catholic school. This represents 770,000 students in 1,762 schools across the country employing over 100,000 teachers and staff. Catholic schools will continue to represent a vital part of the Australian educational landscape in the future.
This government is committed to continuing our support for Catholic schools. Under our Quality Schools package, we'll be providing record funding for Australian schools in all schooling sectors, amounting to some $315.2 billion between 2018 and 2029. Catholic schools across Australia are benefiting financially from these arrangements. Recurrent funding for Catholic schools is estimated to grow from $5.1 billion in 2013 to $7.9 billion in 2020-21 and $10.6 billion in 2029. This is an increase of $5.5 billion over 2014 to 2029—an average per student increase of 5.2 per cent each year from 2014 to 2020-21.
Bennelong is one of Australia's most multicultural electorates. While it is famous today for the large Chinese and Korean diaspora of Eastwood, the fifties and sixties were a time of mass migration of Italians and other southern Europeans to the up-and-coming suburb of Ryde. They brought with them their family, their cuisine and their religion. Alongside the churches, a flurry of new Catholic schools popped up to join the many established ones already in the community. As a result Bennelong has 12 Catholic schools educating students between kindergarten and year 12. They span the electorate—from our Lady Help of Christians, at the top of Epping, to St Michael's near the river in Meadowbank. Many of these schools are among the highest-quality schools in Sydney. Many have fantastic facilities and great records. But it is the quality principals and teachers, many of whom I have known for years, who are responsible for the great outcomes of all the students who go through these schools. I have been delighted to work with these schools for many years through my school initiatives like the Bennelong Cup table tennis competition, in which 40 schools participate, and the Bennelong STEM challenge. I've also been delighted to attend schools for graduation ceremonies, building openings and, before 2020, fetes and other regular celebrations, which I'm looking forward to returning to shortly.
I've still been able to have some local connection to these schools. On 27 May, I was delighted to meet with year 6 students at St Michael's Catholic Primary School when they visited Parliament House. I was happy to spend some time chatting with the students about the issues that were important to them. Unfortunately, parliament was sitting during a similar visit from St Gerard's Catholic Primary School more recently. I was also very pleased to visit St Charles Catholic Primary School at Ryde and our Lady Queen of Peace Catholic Primary School at Gladesville. I was there to present the schools with new Australian and Aboriginal flags. While I was there, we were also able to celebrate the cause of this motion today, the 200th anniversary of Catholic education in Australia. It is great to see this incredible milestone being celebrated across our community.
I can attest to the quality of Catholic schools personally. My office has had such a good reputation locally, purely because of the hard work of one Daniel Severino, my case worker, who was also the school captain of Holy Spirit Primary Catholic Primary School in North Ryde. When we attended there one day, he modestly said, 'My name is on the honour board.' When I said, 'Why is that, Daniel?' He said, 'I was the captain of the school'—they also taught modesty. If all their graduates are as professional, dedicated and hardworking as Daniel, Holy Spirit alone has done a great service to our community and this country. (Time expired)
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (17:15): As someone who was raised in the Irish Catholic tradition and educated in Catholic schools—as was Peter Lalor, I assume—I'm pleased to rise on this motion, and I thank the member for Parramatta for bringing it to the chamber. Obviously, as a Victorian I can bring a special flavour to this, and I will use my contribution tonight to celebrate the contribution made by Mary MacKillop in Catholic education, because her mission was to educate the poor, and I'm proud to say that in my electorate many of our Catholic schools follow that mission to the letter. These are faith based schools that are dedicated to social justice, and I think that's really worth celebrating. Catholic schools have been dedicated to ensuring equality and equity for children across the country for 200 years.
I want to pay tribute to the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, who followed Mary MacKillop, now our much-celebrated saint, into that work in schools across the country and who, I'm proud to say, I spent many, many positive hours with as a teenaged girl. I would point out Sister Giovanni Farquer, who was the founding principal of MacKillop college in my electorate and went on to be principal of Mount St. Joseph Girls' College in Altona. I attended both of those and had the pleasure of her leadership at Mount St Joseph's.
I'd also like to play tribute to a particular Josephite sister, Sister Nora. Something that I think only could happen in the Catholic system is that in year 12 I did four subjects, three of which were taught by Sister Nora: classics, literature and English. So I spent a very long year with Sister Nora, and I think it's fair to say that she left a mark on the entire cohort for many, many decades. She was born in Ireland, and I remember quite distinctly a very cheeky friend of mine trying to distract her one day in classics by asking why she had become a nun. Sister Nora's very prompt response was, 'Well, I was from a very large, very poor family in a very poor part of Ireland, and I had a choice: I could get married, stay where I was and have brats like you, or I could pursue an education.' And that she did. At last count, she had three PhDs in ancient languages. I think we learned her lessons well, and I think that, in that cohort in particular, she taught us very well.
I want to celebrate the Catholic schools in my electorate and their principals as well. Let me list them: Corpus Christi Primary School and its principal, Linda Roynic; MacKillop Catholic Regional College, which I attended, and its principal, Rory Kennedy; Our Lady of the Southern Cross Primary School and its principal, Justin Hilton; St Andrew's Primary School, which I attended as a child and where my children followed me, and its principal, Mr Michael Gavaghan; St Clare's Catholic Primary School and its principal, Andrew Leighton; St Francis of Assisi Primary School and its principal, Michelle Gillett; St James the Apostle Primary School and its principal, Mary Abbott; St John the Apostle Primary School and its principal, Simon Dundon; St Joseph's Catholic Primary School, whose opening I attended quite recently with principal Shelley Ryan, who is no relation although we look similar and the children thought we were cousins; St Peter Apostle Primary School and its principal, Karen Wilson; and Thomas Carr College and its principal, Craig Holmes.
But let me be clear. This government was prepared to leave the Catholic sector behind in our recent history, and it was a campaign by Labor and the Catholic education sector that brought this government to make that funding contribution. I'm talking about this federal government and the fact that it was brought to the table. They wanted to leave state schools and Catholic schools behind. They've managed to leave state schools behind, but fortunately they have come to the table to appropriately fund Catholic schools, as they have done for independent schools. I want to make that point really clearly. This year one of my local Catholic schools, MacKillop Regional Catholic College, will celebrate 50 years of operating in my electorate, and I want to wish them well in those celebrations. I will be attending those celebrations as a former student. It is a school that my family have a long connection to. But let me be clear: school funding should be sector blind. It should be needs based. It should live up to the Catholic education ethos of equality for all. It should be about social justice, and this government should join us and make sure that that happens across the country in every school.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (17:20): It's a great privilege to be able to speak on this important motion celebrating the bicentenary of Catholic education in Australia. I in the Goldstein electorate, like members across the Chamber, I'm sure, have many Catholic schools that are immensely proud of their contribution as part of the enrichment and wellbeing of the education of the next generation of Australians. I personally did not go to a Catholic school. My husband did and was educated all the way through, including in tertiary education at the Australian Catholic University. But it is the proud tradition and stewardship of young minds, creating opportunities and driving a sense of social justice through empowerment in the Catholic tradition that we should celebrate, because that is what so many Australians look for in their education system. Yes, it is obviously to educate the next generation of minds, but it is to ensure that they are embodied and educated in a fullness and richness in values and, in some cases, in a spiritual tradition which reflects their values. Being Liberals, that goes to the heart of our approach to education.
We have always believed in choice of education not just because we believe in things like competition and what it can do to improve and lift standards so that kids get a better outcome—though that is also true—but because we respect the choice of parents to be able to make decisions to educate their children in their religious and cultural traditions that reflect their aspirations and their hopes. We should be immensely proud of the role that the Catholic education system has played in that story, because it's the story of our nation and how it was built.
The first Catholic school, which Catholic historians believe was in Hunter Street in Parramatta and taught 31 students, was founded in October 1820 by Irish Catholic priest John Terry. It's from these foundations that the Catholic education system has grown to the second-biggest provider of schools based education after government schools. Of course, it's not just the Liberal support for the Catholic education system that has been consistent around all that time around freedom of choice; Liberals have been central to universal education as part of the story of the history of our country as well. Of course, that was most seminal in the second half of the 20th century, where it became a great contest of ideas between the different sides, not just of this Chamber, around attitudes between freedom, choice and responsibility in the Liberal tradition and conformity imposed under the socialist tradition.
One of the big fights that the Menzies government had was in introducing limited federal funding for non-government schools through the passing of the States Grants Act, which provided grants for science laboratories and equipment to both government and non-government secondary schools without discrimination. This, of course, led many of those who wanted conformity within our society finding it very difficult, because they thought it was an attack on government schools. But we have always been believers in lifting all boats and giving people more choice. That is the very definition of 'empowerment' from the Liberal tradition, something we're immensely proud of. We know that that became something that our political opponents opposed. We're very proud of that tradition. We continue to be proud of it, and we will continue to be proud of it into the future.
Of course, Commonwealth funding of Catholic schools began formally from 1970 under the Gorton and McMahon governments. In 1973 we saw a needs based model for non-government schools introduced by the Whitlam government because they saw through harsh lessons of history the role it can play. But today we're very proud to continue our support for Catholic education.
In the Goldstein electorate we have many schools—and I understand these names are from last year—including Our Lady of the Sacred Heart, with principal Anne O'Loughlin and chair of the board Sandra Diafas; Sacred Heart Parish School, with principal Erin Macdonald; St Agnes', with principal Lachlan Foott and chair of the board Myles Whelan; St Finbar's, with principal Pat Berlingeri and chair of the board Kate MacKenzie; St James, with principal Brendan Flanagan and chair of the board Father Martin Dixon; St Joan of Arc School, with principal Tony McMahon and chair of the board David Murray; St Joseph's School, with principal Liam Buckley and chair of the board Melanie Leydin; St Kevin's, with principal Nigel Rodrigues; St Mary's, with principal Matthew Sweeney and chair of the board Paula Cunniffe; St Paul's School, with principal Catherine Tammesild and chair of the board Meghan Speers; Star of the Sea College, with principal Mary O'Connor and chair of the board Lisa Dwyer; Stella Maris, with principal Yvan Frederic; and Xavier College's Kostka Hall, which, of course, is in its sunset, with head of the campus Kathleen Upfold and chair of the board Mr Tony Nunan. We thank you for your service.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Order. 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.
Veterans: Veteran Wellbeing Centres
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (17:25): I move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the service and sacrifice of those who have served in the Australian Defence Force, along with that of their families;
(2) notes:
(a) the Government's 2019 election commitment to establish a network of Veteran Wellbeing Centres in Townsville, Perth, Wodonga, Darwin, Adelaide and Nowra;
(b) that these centres, which are being developed in partnership with the ex-service community and state governments, will bring together a range of critical services relied upon by veterans and their families, including the health treatment, mental health support, employment and transition assistance and advocacy support; and
(c) that the Government committed an additional $10.7 million in the 2021-22 Budget towards expansion of the wellbeing centre network into south-east Queensland and Tasmania; and
(3) acknowledges the critical importance of such partnerships between governments and the ex-service community in supporting the health and wellbeing of Australia's veterans and their families.
First and foremost, I believe that it's bipartisan to acknowledge the service of our ADF—the men and women who put on the uniform every day—and veterans and their families. I am very humbled to be able to move this motion today because I want to highlight the work that is being done in my community of Townsville but also around the country around Veteran Wellbeing Centres.
Last time we were in here, I was speaking to the member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce, and congratulating him on being soon to be a father again—for the third time, I believe—and now I can let everyone know that he has had his child. And I'm very happy that his daughter has taken her mother's looks! I wish them the best and look forward to him coming back to this place, because he is a passionate advocate for his electorate and the veteran community.
Townsville is the largest garrison city in the nation. We have tens of thousands of defence personnel, veterans and their families. So it was only right that we were fortunate enough to be one of the first to receive a wellbeing centre. In the last budget, we got an additional $10.7 million to expand them further across the country.
As someone who deployed, and like many people on both sides of this place, I know serving and transitioning can be challenging. You can find yourself looking for the supports that should be readily available. These veteran wellbeing hubs will be that one-stop shop where we and our people can go get the support that we need. I know that, when I transitioned out, I slipped away quickly into a very dark place, and, like many people, made some horrendous life choices. I think that these Veteran Wellbeing Centres, these hubs across the country, will be that linkage from serving to making the transition out and having that soft landing where you can look for meaningful engagement, meaningful employment and purpose. Having your family—your defence family—wrapping around you, I think, is a step in the right direction to preventive measures, when that transition can sometimes be absolutely devastating.
I know that, with a lot of ADF people, like me, when you're in, you don't even have a Medicare card. So, when you're out, how are you supposed to find the services that are there to best support you? You might find them on social media. But not all ESOs link closely together. Sometimes it can be quite difficult to find what actually fits with you, whether it's going through Mates4Mates or Soldier On, or getting an assistance dog—whatever the case may be. Not all ESOs are a fit for all people. But having a one-stop shop that can be that linkage I think is very important.
That one-stop shop in Townsville is the Oasis. We opened it just a couple of weeks ago, and you'll hear it here first—and I know the member for Blair will like this: I had the Premier in Townsville, and it was good, because we could stand there and open a centre for veterans, and take the politics out of it, and put the people that we should be representing every single day at the forefront of our minds. And we did that. The three local state MPs—anyone who knows me knows that we don't always see eye to eye and that we can be challenging to each other, but they were there, and it was great, because the people were put before politics. At the Oasis centre there's a drop-in place where you can go just to get a coffee. You don't even have to be talking to anyone. That's important for being connected to our community, because not everyone wants to walk in a door and have white walls and feel as though you're in a clinic; you want to go somewhere where you feel comfortable, get a brew, sit down, link in with your colleagues who you used to serve with or just have a chat.
I note that veterans aren't just in Townsville; they're all around the country. They're in places that will be getting veterans' wellbeing centres. I had a really good chat with the Premier of Queensland, and she said that we should be looking for other places, throughout Queensland, that can get wellbeing centres. I think we should be working more closely together, because our brave men and women who put on the uniform every day deserve our support.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Gillespie ) (17:31): Is the motion seconded?
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (17:31): I second the motion and thank the member for Herbert for putting it forward. I'm pleased for him that the Oasis is up and running. I've been to Townsville a number of times since the last federal election and have met with the people associated with the Oasis. They are good people with very committed hearts and are very determined to make sure that veterans are cared for in Townsville. I thank the Queensland government for the leadership they've shown in this space as well.
At the outset, I also want to say that Labor recognises the services and the sacrifices of those men and women in the ADF, along with their families, and we strongly support the concept of veterans' wellbeing centres. In fact, we announced three veterans' support centres—in Darwin, Townsville and, in my electorate, Ipswich—in the lead-up to the 2019 federal election, well before the government pledged its six veterans' wellbeing centres. In the end, Labor committed to seven veterans' hubs around the country, one more than the Liberals and Nationals.
The idea of these centres is that they are being developed in partnership with ex-service organisations, state governments and other organisations to act as a hub, or a one-stop shop, for wraparound services and the referrals for veterans and families when it comes to health, mental health, employment and other transition assistance, advocacy, wellbeing, and support. They also provide a space for community organisations and are a place to meet for friendship and fellowship, post service, by ADF personnel.
I'd like to remind the member for Herbert, however, and the parliament, that the government committed to having all six of these centres up and running by last year. It's now 2021, and only half of the centres have been completed: the Perth centre last year, the Adelaide centre earlier this year and the Townsville centre just recently. The remaining centres—Nowra, Wodonga and Darwin—are still yet to find permanent sites and are expected to open only in 2022, a full two years behind schedule. This blowout is looking more and more like just another broken promise from the Liberals and the Nationals. There's nothing in the May budget to fast-track the delivery of these centres, and they're well behind schedule. It goes to show that this is a government which likes to make announcements but never delivers and never follows through.
I note that there is some money in the 2021-22 budget—$10.7 million—to establish two new veterans' wellbeing centres, in Tasmania and South-East Queensland. We call on the government to announce precisely where they're going to be. In consideration in detail last week, the member for Herbert let the cat out of the bag by revealing that the Tasmanian centre will be located in the marginal Liberal-held seat of Braddon. I congratulate the member for Braddon on his recent arrival. There's something else that's going to arrive in his electorate, according to the member for Herbert: a veterans' hub. We've heard reports that the Tasmanian veterans' hub will be rolled out in Burnie, in Braddon. I saw that the Minister for Veterans' Affairs was down there recently with the member for Braddon, meeting with local veterans to talk about this issue.
The local organisation may well be a good organisation, but it's important that the minister comes out and tells us, and the Tasmanian veterans, precisely where this will be. I note that the government and the Department of Veterans' Affairs are working with the state government in Tasmania on a feasibility study. That concluded in January this year, so the minister needs to reveal the findings of the study and the consultations. It would be much, much better.
He also needs to tell us where the South-East Queensland veteran wellbeing centre will be located. I notice the minister issued a joint media release with the Minister for Defence following the budget, so I'm guessing this veterans hub will be plonked in the member for Dickson's electorate. I remind the member for Dickson that his colleague the member for Ryan, whose electorate takes in the Enoggera army base, also wants a veterans hub. The minister will need to work through all of that to work out whether it's Ryan or Dickson. We'll see which one is most likely to be in debate at the next election. He owes it to veterans in South-East Queensland to say where the wellbeing centre will be.
It's worth reminding the chamber that in 2016 the then Liberal candidate in my electorate announced an unfunded commitment for a veterans recovery centre in Ipswich. I called it out as a cynical election bribe at the time, and sure enough the government never delivered on it. Despite my written request to the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs that it be honoured, the initiative was quietly dropped from LNP policy in 2019. Ipswich has the largest veteran population in South-East Queensland and it's home to RAAF Base Amberley, the biggest air base in the country, so it makes perfect sense for the government to deliver a veterans hub in Ipswich. The government needs to do the right thing and honour its original 2016 election promise. But the government has a bit of form when it comes to not honouring election promises and doing certain things—we note the sports rorts, regional rorts and the colour-coded spreadsheets.
I acknowledge the member for Herbert and thank him for this motion, but the government needs to do much better in the area of veterans hubs. I call on the government to announce one in my electorate and honour their previous commitment.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (17:36): Formed in June 1916 by troops returning from World War I, the Returned and Services League was created with the purpose of preserving the spirit of mateship formed on the battlefield, to honour the memory of the fallen and to help each other when required. With no formal government welfare services for veterans at this time, the RSL committed itself to provide for the wounded and needy among those who had served, including their dependants. Today RSLs and sub-branches across the country are filled with members and volunteers committed to helping their fellow veterans.
I was fortunate to introduce the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Darren Chester, to a few Northern Tasmanian sub-branches during his visit last month. It was part of Minister Chester's visit to the region to encourage veterans and their families to make submissions to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, but the visit was also an opportunity to meet with local branches and their members to discuss the needs of the veteran community on the ground and how existing programs might fit within the framework of the proposed wellbeing centres. At the last election the government committed $30 million to develop a network of six veteran wellbeing centres across Australia, which once established will deliver integrated support to veterans and their families from government, business and community partnerships. I was very pleased when extra funding was announced in the last budget for the network to extend to Tasmania, and I thank my colleague and veteran of the ADF, member for Braddon, Gavin Pearce for working with me to secure this funding.
In addition to meeting with the Bridport and George Town RSLs, it was a privilege to take the minister to meet with the Launceston RSL sub-branch. As the oldest existing sub-branch in Australia, the Launceston RSL is growing from strength to strength. At its core it is still providing essential services to veterans and their families. Led by Graeme Barnett as president and Peter Williams as secretary, the sub-branch is a leader in the programs that are executed from its Wellington Street premises in Launceston. They reach and assist veterans and their families not only in the immediate area but also across the wider community, including the east coast of Tasmania. I know that the minister was very impressed with the work that they do and viewed the branch and their work as a gold standard. It is not just a sub-branch; it is also already a hub for the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia, Vietnam Veterans and Veterans Motorcycle Club, the NAA Launceston South subsection, the RAAF Association, the TPI Association, the Veterans Support Group, the RSL Women's Auxiliary, the Royal United Services Institute, veterans advocates, Mates4Mates and the ADF Welfare Team.
I would like to highlight the work of the ADF Welfare Team, which was created just over four years ago after it was identified that for many reasons a number of veterans were hitting a crisis point. A major focus of the welfare team is to prevent veteran suicides and reduce the number of homeless veterans. Run entirely by a team of eight volunteers, the team's efforts were recognised with a Tasmanian volunteer of the year award in 2018, and the DVA considers the ADF Welfare Team model to be one of the best in Australia. The sub-branch is also the central location for a number of other community groups, hosting meetings and training sessions, and with a fully functioning kitchen they've also got the capacity to host functions. They have the goal of heading towards complete self-sufficiency with the operating model, which can be achieved through some additional funding to undertake some upgrades to the building, a tired and somewhat outdated home, which would allow the sub-branch to expand and improve their veteran support facilities as well as their volunteer capacity.
The Georgetown RSL, which also runs outreach programs, are seeking to enhance their services by increasing accessibility for all of those who come through the door, and are looking to add gym equipment as part of their wellbeing programs. Since the minister's visit, I've had many constructive meetings to further advocate for additional funding to address the needs of the Launceston RSL and Georgetown RSL, and I have no doubt that the new minister will work with me to achieve a positive outcome.
To close, I'd like to pay tribute to Launceston World War II veteran Dr Ray Leonard, who passed away just a few days ago. Dr Leonard was the last surviving crew member of the HMAS Armidale, and was just 19 years old when the ship came under Japanese attack and was sunk on 1 December 1942. Dr Leonard lobbied for a number of years to see fellow Tasmanian Ordinary Seaman Edward 'Teddy' Sheean recognised with a Victoria Cross for his courageous actions on board the Armidale. I'm so pleased that he lived to see Teddy's bravery recognised. Vale Ray Leonard.
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (17:41): I want to thank the member for Herbert for this private member's motion today, because I had the absolute pleasure a couple of weeks ago of attending the interim Nowra Veteran Wellbeing Centre, which is now up and running and providing support to veterans and their families. In fact, this centre was a bipartisan commitment before the last federal election. I'm delighted to see this centre up and running in an interim form.
The Nowra Veteran Wellbeing Centre will provide support to veterans and their families on the New South Wales South Coast and south-east New South Wales. That's a very big area, and we have a lot of very much loved veterans. We have a strong Navy presence at Nowra and Jervis Bay. We are home to HMAS Albatross, the only Navy aviation base in Australia. The squadrons and support staff provide a vital role around Australia and overseas. HMAS Creswell is Australia's only Navy officer training school, and just last week we saw the latest graduates from the new entry officers' course. I'm proud to say that both HMAS Albatross and HMAS Creswell are fully embedded in our community. Defence families play a significant role. Defence children go to our local schools and join our sporting and community groups, and defence partners work in our local community.
The new Nowra Veteran Wellbeing Centre is run by RSL LifeCare. The plans have been drawn up and it will eventually be located alongside RSL LifeCare's Dumaresq retirement village. But in the meantime a temporary premise has been set up in Nowra. I called in a couple of weeks ago to catch up with the centre manager, Marcus; the veteran support coordinator, Kane; and Gracie, the most adorable, well trained black Labrador. Marcus ably explained the services that will be run from the centre. Soldier On will have an important role to play as well, enabling veterans and their families to thrive. The services will be able to work together in an integrated way to service the best needs of our community. A trained psychologist is available for veterans and their families.
Kane had been very busy networking within the community—remember, it's a very large area—talking with RSL clubs and veterans organisations about the services. There are both networking and making good links within the community to get the word out there that the Nowra Veteran Wellbeing Centre is open. Indeed, when I was there, a veteran popped into the centre, so I think they are going great. I am a mom of a new army soldier, and, when I mentioned that, I could see Marcus and Kane's eyes light up. They said, 'This service is for you, too.' I was able to ask all sorts of very basic questions, and they knew exactly how to answer and put me at ease. Yes, Gracie was pretty reassuring, too! It got me thinking: this is exactly what the service is about. No question is too small, no issue too large. Whatever the issue, Marcus and Kane and the services are there to help guide and provide links to further help for veterans and their families if need be.
As the federal member for Gilmore, I've had an enormous opportunity to meet serving defence personnel and veterans, for whom I will be forever grateful because of their service and sacrifice to our nation. There are some things that stick in my mind, and they're not really formal things—in fact, they just happened—but they left a huge imprint on me. I was at the Nowra Show and a young defence veteran and his wife, who was about to give birth any day, approached me. He had recently discharged from the Navy. He had done his trade but needed to go back to TAFE to upgrade his skills. He was telling me the enormous fee that had to be paid. Another time I was doorknocking and I happened to meet another young man who had also recently discharged and was also contemplating his work options. He too had a family. I don't know these veterans' names, but I do know that they would be a fairly typical example of the enormous change in life on becoming a veteran and needing support.
When I think of the Nowra Veteran Wellbeing Centre I think of all of our veterans and their families. This is of course a wonderful centre. I congratulate everyone involved in the establishment of this centre. I look forward to the official opening of the permanent Nowra wellbeing centre in the not too distant future.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (17:45): I thank the member for Herbert for bringing this very important motion forward. Estimating the number of veterans on the Sunshine Coast is difficult. The Morrison government's decision to include a question regarding veterans' status on this year's census will be a critical step forward in this regard. However, in the meantime the Queensland RSL has estimated that there are as many as 15,000 veterans living on the Sunshine Coast. Since my election in 2016 I've been committed to listening to them and ensuring that their voice gets heard in this government. I've held three separate veterans forums in Fisher, inviting local veterans and ex-service organisations to have their say on a wide variety of issues. I've hosted the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and the Assistant Minister for Defence in Fisher to speak to veterans. As well I brought Senator Molan to my community. I want to give Jim a big shout-out. I hope his treatment is going well.
Veterans in Fisher tell me they want the services they need to be accessible quickly and easily from the Department of Veterans' Affairs. They are not asking for more than they are due; they are simply asking that their services and support, which are at the heart of the covenant between Australia and its serving men and women, are as easy to access as possible. I know that many in my community would acknowledge that the government has already made important strides forward in this regard.
The government has instituted a policy of no discharge without documentation and ensured that the DVA is informed when a serving man or woman leaves the ADF. We've introduced the universal veterans card and the veterans lapel pin to give existing veterans other incentives to register with the DVA. Importantly, the government has invested more than $500 million in improving the DVA. In the recent budget we've gone further, with another $55 million to make it quicker and easier for veterans and their families to access the support that they need. It's important to recognise that that's on top of the $11.5 billion that this government spends on veterans every year. In the year ahead another 440 staff will be taken on to more quickly and efficiently process the claims that are made to the DVA.
However, all of this is only one side of the story. Dealing with the department can be challenging. Even when registered, getting access to the services and practitioners that veterans need, especially in regional areas like the Sunshine Coast, can be a mission in itself. In regional areas medical specialists, occupational therapists, employment consultants and mental health practitioners can be few and far between and those that are there can be scattered across multiple townships. For older veterans or those with significant impairments, sourcing a long list of practitioners and travelling hundreds of kilometres to visit each of them in turn is hard to sustain. Some, overwhelmed, give up. That is the challenge that the Morrison government is now helping to meet with the new network of eight veterans wellbeing centres across the country.
The government is investing some $40.7 million to get these centres going. There are already three open now, with two more operating from interim locations. The centres bring together in the one place transition and employment support, advocacy services, physical and mental health practitioners, and client engagement. They are a one-stop shop to put an end to the long trails that veterans in these regions must follow to get access to all of the services they need. This year, in the federal budget the Morrison government has acknowledged the importance of South-East Queensland, including, I hope, the Sunshine Coast, which has a major concentration of ADF veterans. Our populous but decentralised region needs a veterans' wellbeing centre and, thanks to this year's federal budget, South-East Queensland will be getting one.
Only one question remains to be resolved: where will it be located? For my money, one region stands out, and it won't surprise you to know that that is the Sunshine Coast. I will be encouraging the minister to make our region its permanent home. I would urge all veterans in my community to write to me, to write to their federal member for Fairfax or Wide Bay, to express their support for putting a facility on the coast so that I can pass their views on to the minister and make their views known.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (17:50): I always welcome the opportunity to speak on veterans' affairs in this place. It's an issue that's very close to my heart and in fact was a significant reason that I put my hand up for political service. Our veterans definitely deserve a much better deal and obviously welcome the long-fought-for royal commission that's very much required. I'd like to thank and acknowledge the member for Herbert for raising this motion. Like me and others in this place, he is a veteran, so he understands from his own lived experience how important these wellbeing centres are. While we might be on the opposite side of politics, I would like to acknowledge the member for Herbert's ongoing service to our nation.
The motion put forward talks about veteran wellbeing centres, and of course the concept is a fantastic one. To have centres in our communities, particularly those with large concentrations of veterans, like my electorate in Darwin, and the families there, they need support. One of the many complaints I've heard for many years is that services aren't integrated, they're too segmented and there is seldom enough follow-up. Follow-up is important. I caught up with Heston Russell, a veteran, a former commando, this week. His consultation process for the terms of reference for the royal commission had 861 submissions. That is a huge amount of feedback from veterans. Six hundred and fifty-four responses to an optional question on that consultation process were about veteran experiences.
Out of the responses there were 117 veterans who had attempted suicide and 328 who had contemplated suicide or had suicidal ideation. Of those submissions, 190 had been admitted for mental health issues. That is why, with the member for Kingston, Labor committed to a veterans' wellbeing centre in Darwin in my electorate well before the last federal election. Later on, we saw from the federal government announcements about a range of wellbeing centres, and obviously I welcomed that; despite the lack of detail, at least they were seeing what we were announcing and seeing that it was a good thing. They promised $5 million for a veterans' wellbeing centre in Darwin.
Of course on budget night I looked with great interest to see where the $5 million was in the budget over the forward estimates for the establishment of a veterans' wellbeing centre in Darwin in my electorate; but, unfortunately, there was a grand total of zero dollars in the federal budget. There was no $5 million in the federal budget for a wellbeing centre in Darwin. Mates4Mates is rolling out an interim site. It's been a very long and slow process. But it's very concerning to me, obviously, that there's no $5 million in the federal budget for a wellbeing centre for our veterans and for our families in my electorate. Obviously, to whoever is the veterans' affairs minister after the National Party go through their reshuffle: I really hope that that money is put in there, because that's what was promised to the veterans and families of my electorate. It is very difficult to provide a veterans wellbeing centre without any money—and then it obviously has to be effective.
I want to reflect on the need to treat our veterans and their families with respect. It took years of lobbying for them to get to the point of a royal commission. The failure to put the money in the budget for the veterans wellbeing centre in Darwin is another example of how those opposite are letting down veterans in my electorate. It needs to be funded. In the time remaining, I want to acknowledge the establishment of the Council of Australian Veterans NT and I want to acknowledge the work of the ESOs that are going to be part of that Council of Australian Veterans. They are sick of the delays and they want some action. Veterans are standing up, and they will get that action with federal Labor.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): 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.
Port of Darwin
Mr KATTER (Kennedy) (17:56): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) in 2015, the Northern Territory Government foolishly awarded a 99-year lease of the Port of Darwin to Shandong Landbridge Group, a privately held company with ties to the Chinese Government and Communist Party of China; and
(b) the foreign ownership of the Port of Darwin represents a significant threat to Australia's strategic interests; and
(2) calls on the Commonwealth Government to:
(a) immediately prioritise Australia's sovereignty and strategic interests;
(b) take steps to force the immediate sale of the Port of Darwin to an Australian-owned company; and
(c) ensure that the Port of Darwin stays in the hands of the Australians serving our national interest.
We witnessed on the international internet and other parts of the media the image of an Australian soldier slitting the throat of a baby—an image put up there by the Chinese government, presumably, or other nefarious groups in China. The media in China called for the bombing of Australia. You can say, 'Oh well, that's just craziness.' Well, you ought to read the history books about Adolf Hitler and what he was saying. Because our Prime Minister had the temerity to say that COVID came from where everybody on the planet knows where it came from, because he said that publicly, China has taken $29 billion of trade off us. We were told in this place, again and again and again, how wonderful the free-trade deal was.
And we had the then Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott, giving a standing ovation to Andrew Robb, the person who sold the Port of Darwin to China. According to media reports, Andrew Robb was then put on a salary of $999,000 a year—and no-one was punished, no-one was brought to heel, nothing was done about it whatsoever.
Mr Gosling interjecting—
Mr KATTER: The grains industry has suffered, the beef industry has suffered, the wine industry has suffered, the seafood industry has suffered, the timber industry has suffered and the mainstream of the Australian economy, coal, has suffered. Those are the king hits put in so far.
My colleague on the crossbench referred to Global Switch. It is extraordinary. You couldn't dream this up. All of the information storage and retrieval systems are owned by a Chinese company. At this stage, I'm so shocked that nothing will shock me now. When a young lad at the University of Queensland got up and expressed his opinion about what was going on with the Uighurs and students being put in jail in Hong Kong he was bashed up by four Chinese thugs—and no action was taken. Who gave the orders that no action be taken? We know who gave the orders. When it went on the television the first time, the police force started getting a little bit twitchy. God bless my colleague here from the neighbouring electorate of Dawson, who called for an inquiry into what took place at the University of Queensland. Then and only then, when it went on television a second time, the police, after 13 months, suddenly took action. It's on the television, the bloke being bashed. It is unprovoked assault and battery. The police don't get punished, and there's not the slightest doubt in my mind that instructions came from the Queensland government. There is no other way that those police would not have acted. That's bad enough in itself, but, returning to the young fellow, he was punished vilely. Three years of his life at university were taken off him. He had been elected to the university's senate, but they took the position off him, even though democratically they had no right to do that. But then, I suppose, if China is pulling the puppet strings at the University of Queensland—which brings me back to the port of Darwin.
I simply asked the question in the parliament last week, if you'll give me the indulgence of reading it out: 'Defence minister, wouldn't a China oil embargo, cutting off our sources in Singapore and South Korea'—the vast bulk of our petrol comes from those two places—'combined with regular trading vessels disembarking crews at a Chinese port'—they disembark a crew and the crew turns out to be a Chinese commando unit, so they now have control of the Northern Territory in one hit, and the peripheral mining areas— (Time expired)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Is there a seconder for the motion?
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:01): I second the motion.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we go on to the next speaker, Member for Solomon, I'm going to invite you to withdraw your comment 'treasonous'. I heard you say it about—
Mr Gosling: In relation to what, sorry, Deputy Speaker?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In relation to the speech given by the honourable member about Mr Robb—a previous member—you did say it was treasonous. I'm going to invite to you withdraw it.
Mr Katter: Point of order: if you don't call it that, what would you call it?
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's disorderly—
Mr Katter: I'm just asking a question.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's disorderly to refer—I'm going to invite the member—
Mr Gosling: I'll withdraw it to please the Chamber.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for Solomon.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: I will say, regardless of the party that was in power at the time, that it was a very dumb decision—and that is the best thing you could say—to put the port of Darwin into the hands of the Shandong Landbridge Group, a Chinese company, for 99 years. This is a Chinese company that has strategic links to communist China's People's Liberation Army, something that was known and was on the record. It was a very, very dumb decision indeed. I won't say the words that previous members have said that got them into trouble, but it comes very close to it, I would say, because this poses a national security concern for our country.
It wasn't for no reason that the United States was shocked at this decision. One of our closest allies was absolutely shocked to see that port, that strategic port to Asia, to our north—where all of the future conflict and military action is going to be—in the hands of that country, communist China, which has time and time again shown itself not to be a good global citizen. Not only does it persecute its own people—Christians, including Catholics; Falun Dafa practitioners; Tibetans; Uighurs; university students; democracy activists; and the people in Hong Kong, who have had their rights illegally stripped. The list goes on and on, all of that done by that nation. Now, not just against its own citizens does it lash out; it actually lashes out against other nations, in contravention of international maritime law. It has militarised that entire area of reefs in the South China Sea, a territory that is under dispute. Vietnam claims some of that territory and the Philippines claim some of that territory. China, without regard for those countries and their own sovereignty, came in and set up military shop in the middle of that area.
But we have let them come in and lease that port for 99 years, and we don't think that there is going to be some issue with it. Thankfully the view has changed. I'm sure the member for Kennedy will agree with me here. The new defence minister has initiated a review into this. That was actually after a committee that I chaired. The Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth recommended a review into the leasing arrangements with the port of Darwin. Only too well did we recommend that, because I found out some shocking information from Northern Territory Senator Sam McMahon the other day that I want to relay to the House.
She has been informed by a whistleblower insider associated with Landbridge Group. What they have told her is very, very interesting indeed. The Northern Territory government does employ a harbourmaster for that port, but that harbourmaster is entirely administrative in terms of their functionality. They are not operational. They don't look after any of the operational controls. Landbridge runs harbour control. Landbridge runs scheduling. It gives them access to all data on vehicles, including military vessels, that enter or leave that harbour—the sailing time, their time in the port and all historical logs. Where, oh where, is that information going from Landbridge, which has control of it and which has strategic links with Communist China's People's Liberation Army? This is a disgrace. This is a danger to our national security.
My side of politics may have made the decision, but the decision is still bad. I'm sure I'm going to agree with all of the comments that are put forward by those on the opposite side, who will take political pot shots. But at the end of the day I want this ended. The people of Australia want it ended. It needs to be ended for the security of our nation. Ending this doesn't need to cost, either. Once this review has finished, hopefully the Australian government will find that this lease arrangement is not in our national interest and is against national security, and will pull the lever ensuring that Landbridge have to divest into Australian hands. That way it won't cost the taxpayer one dollar, nor should it. This has been a bad decision that could have cost us in the long run that I hope is rectified very soon.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (18:08): I'd like to thank the member for Kennedy for raising this motion around the leasing arrangements of the port of Darwin. Of course, we don't always agree—in fact, probably more often than not—but there's no denying his passion for our country, for our sovereignty and for our future. Of course, it will be no surprise to anyone here that I care deeply about this issue. This issue obviously highlights the strategic importance of Darwin to Australia and the wider Indo-Pacific, particularly in these days.
Even before I was in this place, I was speaking up about this issue and about the disgraceful decision that was made by the Country Liberal Party. Our colleague from the other side says we shouldn't take political pot shots, but let's just call a spade a spade. There is a thing called responsibility. When you make a decision that's wrong, you take responsibility for it. We cannot forget that that deal was also enabled by the federal coalition when they were in government in 2015. My colleague also alluded to some of the ministers and former ministers who, whilst in this place and then immediately after leaving this place, enabled this travesty.
Last month it was announced that the Department of Defence would conduct a review into security implications for the leasing arrangements for the port. Of course, I welcome that. I've been calling for it for a long time. It comes six years after Mr Dennis Richardson, the then Secretary of the Department of Defence, said in 2015:
… Defence does not have any security concerns about the sale of the port to Chinese interests … No part of Defence had a concern from a security perspective in respect of the sale.
Ninety-nine years is a very long time. We do not know when the review will be finished, but I trust that it will be a serious review this time and not just another political fig leaf to protect this government, those opposite, from its past mistakes.
I thank the member for Kennedy for this motion, and I share his frustration about this issue, but I disagree with the motion of the member for Kennedy in its call to ensure that the Port of Darwin is sold only to an Australian company. I don't think we should limit ourselves in that regard. There are ongoing tensions in our region, and we must consider carefully how the port is divested, should the federal government make that decision based on the advice from the Department of Defence, but we've long relied on international capital, so we shouldn't be making decisions based solely on the national origin of companies that want to do business here. So let's keep an open mind.
But it would be a mistake, obviously, to ignore the security risks presented from specific companies seeking to make specific investments, particularly when it comes to critical infrastructure. In this instance, obviously, it's a no-brainer that Landbridge was an inappropriate company to lease such an important piece of infrastructure to, let alone for 99 years. As we've seen, geostrategic situations can move quickly, and they have.
I just want to quickly mention some former Royal Australian Navy officers that went to work for Landbridge. They are honourable men and patriots, and they really took that into their role. But, of course, we can't always depend on Landbridge or any other company employing former Australian Defence Force personnel in these roles.
So I'm pleased that the member for Kennedy has raised this issue, I agree that the lease should not have been approved and that the Port of Darwin deal was a bad deal for the Territory and for the country. Ensuring national security is a primary responsibility of a federal government. We live in an era of increasing complexity, so protecting our national security is multifaceted, but the Port of Darwin deal is not and has never been a complex issue. It is indeed a no-brainer. It wasn't in our interests. It shouldn't have been made. The government must not kick this Defence review, with the input of other important agencies, down the road. Once that national security advice is received, the federal government must act.
Dr MULINO (Fraser) (18:12): I also thank the member for Kennedy for raising this important matter in this chamber and the other members responsible for it having been brought here. I don't agree with every single word of the motion and, as the member for Solomon pointed out, there are some details that we can discuss, but I think it is a very important matter to discuss in this chamber, and I certainly agree with the core sentiments that have motivated this issue being raised.
This coalition government has been in power for eight years. The names on the top of the shop might change every now and then, but it's the same mob who have been responsible for decisions over that period of time, and the decision in 2015 to lease the port of Darwin is one of the largest and most significant errors that have taken place during that period of time. This is a litany of failure by both the Country Liberal Northern Territory government and the federal Liberal-National coalition government. It was an avoidable fiasco that was entirely of the making of those two governments.
I want to talk about some aspects of the decision which are highly problematic, both to inform what we do going forward and so that we don't make errors like this in the future. One characteristic of the decision was the entity to which the lease was made. As others have indicated, the Landbridge group is a Chinese owned company which in October 2015 obtained a 99-year lease. The deal resulted in this group obtaining 100 per cent operational control of the port and 80 per cent ownership of the Darwin port land and the facilities of East Arm Wharf, including the marine supply base and Fort Hill Wharf.
The owner of the Landbridge Group, Ye Cheng, was named by the Chinese government in 2013 as one of the top 10 'individuals caring about the development of national defence'. That's a quote of the People's Republic of China. I say that to highlight the fact that there were characteristics of the entity which obtained this lease that should have been scrutinised more closely. As earlier speakers have indicated, the strategic situation and the strategic risks and threats to Australia have changed markedly in the period since this deal. Ninety-nine years is a very long period of time, and we need to ensure that with assets of this nature we pay much closer attention to the entities benefitting from such transactions.
The second characteristic of this transaction that earlier speakers have noted is the fact that it was 99 years. Any transaction of this length of time needs to be vetted much more carefully in future. The third characteristic of this transaction is that it related to such a strategic asset—not just a strategic asset but a monopoly asset. Whenever we deal with assets of that nature, we need to be much more careful in future.
And the fourth characteristic of this deal that I think is important to highlight is the fact that at its heart it is such a non-reciprocal arrangement. Imagine if an Australian entity tried to purchase, lease or take a controlling interest in an asset of this nature in another country and in particular in the People's Republic of China. Would they have any such opportunity? No. When there are non-reciprocal arrangements like that, it should set off alarm bells.
The actions of the Northern Territory government in selling and leasing this critical infrastructure were not opposed by the Turnbull coalition government at the time, and that was a major strategic error. Indeed, Andrew Robb, the Minister for Trade and Investment in the Turnbull government, said:
Landbridge's commitment to the growth of the Port of Darwin will be a huge spur to the development of Australia's north …
So it was not only not vetted; it was naively welcomed at the time. It is worth contrasting that enthusiasm that was expressed by the Northern Territory and also by the Turnbull government with the sentiments expressed by the Northern Territory Labor Party, which identified this transaction as short-sighted and contrary to the territory's long-term interests—prophetic words. You can also contrast it with the views expressed by the federal Labor Party at the time, which highlighted the anxiety within the Australian Defence Force created by the lease of such a critical piece of national infrastructure and the importance of conducting a proper and thorough review to identify the implications of the deal.
There are a number of characteristics of this deal which are highly concerning. One is the entity which benefited from the transaction. Two is the length of the lease. Three is the monopolistic and strategic nature of the asset. Four is the fact that we have to question whether it was a deal that was at all reciprocal. All of these alarm bells should have been looked at at the time. They need to inform better decision-making going forward.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): 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.
Space Industry
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (18:18): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes that the Government has recognised the value of Australia's growing space sector by including space as one of the six national priority manufacturing sectors in the $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy;
(2) welcomes the Government's goal of tripling the space industry by 2030 to $12 billion;
(3) congratulates the new head of the Australian Space Agency, Mr Enrico Palermo on his appointment and notes his significant industry and corporate experience in the sector;
(4) commends the Government for enabling Australian businesses to become part of the international space supply chain and have a role in NASA's Moon to Mars mission; and
(5) further welcomes the release of the Space Sector Industry Road Map and the opening of grants for this sector under the Modern Manufacturing Initiative's Translation and Integration streams.
The vision of Apollo 11 on the Moon inspired a generation. The eagle landed and Neil Armstrong etched his words and his boot print into the history books, but without Australia the world would have been deprived of witnessing one of the most incredible testaments to the human spirit. The talented, hardworking and pioneering Australians at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, less than an hour's drive from our parliament, beamed the first eight minutes of the Moon landing footage to millions of people around the world, absolutely transfixed on what they were seeing. A young Andy Thomas, a university student at the time, was enthralled and inspired by the footage. In his own words, he 'couldn't imagine doing anything more exciting'. As we know, Dr Andy Thomas AO went on to undertake four NASA space missions.
Australia played a pivotal role in this tremendous milestone in space. Now, with Morrison government's support, we will continue to be at the forefront of this emerging and new space industry that will create and sustain Australian jobs and inspire the next generation. We have a plan to triple the size of Australia's space industry by 2030, growing it to $12 billion and creating up to another 20,000 new jobs. This will provide opportunities in all sectors of the space industry, from advanced manufacturing to research. The Morrison government's Modern Manufacturing Initiative is focusing on building our sovereign manufacturing capability in six priority areas. These areas of competitive advantage or strategic importance to Australia include space.
Not only is the space industry a pioneer of scientific and technological advancements; it brings industries like manufacturing along with it to create and sustain more jobs. The Morrison government is investing $150 billion to back Australian businesses in joining NASA's endeavours to do exactly that, creating local jobs at the forefront of the next great advancement in space. This is an extraordinary opportunity not just to open up new and exciting opportunities for Australian businesses to be a part of but also to build on our close cooperation with our friend and ally the United States. As the chair of the parliamentary friends of the United States, I'm proud that we are investing in the relationship between the Australian Space Agency and NASA. It is crucial that we continue to strengthen our key partnerships with our allies in the emerging industries and strategic dimensions.
Australian businesses are poised to make the most of the close cooperation between the Australian Space Agency and NASA through groundbreaking operations that hold tremendous job-creating potential. One of these is the Moon to Mars initiative. As NASA puts it, this is a mission that prepares for humanity's next great leap, sending astronauts to Mars. For Australian businesses, this five-year program means increasing access to international supply chains, providing the support they need to develop and launch products that add to Australia's capability in space and ensuring Australia plays a key role in NASA's return to the moon and journey onto Mars. This is part of our plan to integrate Australian businesses into the space supply chain and continue to play a leading role in pioneering space missions. Under the leadership of the head of the Australian Space Agency, I can't wait to see the leaps and bounds we take as a space-faring nation.
Since establishing the Australian Space Agency in 2018 we've committed over $700 million to grow the civil space sector. In this year's budget we are going further to support the Australian Space Agency's capabilities, and we are creating detailed road maps to outline the future of the space industry, making sure it delivers the best outcomes for Australia and ensuring we create and sustain local jobs. I am so excited about this and particularly excited about the opportunities in my electorate of Lindsay.
The space industry is one that truly moves the dial on what is possible. I have always believed that together—and this is another example of this—we can do everything. Developing Australia's space industry, one that supports tens of thousands of jobs, is something we should absolutely be aiming for, and I want to see more businesses in Western Sydney playing an active and integral role in the supply chains, turning Australia's courage and ingenuity into products that can lead the world in the next great missions, like NASA's Moon to Mars. Best of all, it's about our kids and the excitement they have for space in the future.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Simmonds: I'm happy to second it, and I reserve my right to speak.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (18:23): I rise today to support the new and promising Australian space industry. There's nothing that excites or captures the imagination quite like boldly going where no person has gone before. The measures that the government are taking with the establishment of the Australian Space Agency that I had the pleasure of visiting recently and in supporting this fledgling sector have the backing of me and the Labor Party.
We know that space is projected to be a $1 trillion to $2 trillion industry by the 2040s. One interesting statistic is that, presently, there are around 3,700 satellites orbiting earth. In the next five years, that will grow to 100,000 satellites. That is a phenomenal increase. It's prudent to lay the framework—given this stratospheric rise in space—for an Australian space industry today, so that we may capitalise on and take part in the booming industry of tomorrow. It's incumbent on us to uphold the unwritten contract between the generations—to ensure that our children enter a better world than we did. Investments in the space industry will provide exciting, well-paid jobs for our children and grandchildren and theirs, if we do this right. They may even enter a better galaxy than we did.
Our children may work for the new Australian Space Agency, participating in home-grown and NASA missions, and continue the legacy of the regional New South Wales workers who, out at Parkes, supported the moon landing by broadcasting from the now famous dish. The Australian Space Agency is currently under the capable leadership of Enrico Palermo, who I had the pleasure of meeting with in beautiful Adelaide. Enrico has spent the last 14 years working within the US space sector and he brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to Australia, having been responsible for the construction and testing of a fleet of commercial spacecraft. Now he's come home, to Australia.
Our children may work in my electorate of Paterson, at Technology Place, Williamtown, in Australia's premier defence technology estate. The possibilities for well-paid research and manufacturing jobs in the space sector are boundless. There's nothing more exciting to think about than the technologies we see on our screens in science fiction becoming a reality in our world, and we've already got the Hunter producing vital space innovation.
A friend of mine, who I first met while working at the University of Newcastle, Kim Ellis Hayes, was a finalist for Academic of the Year at this year's Space Awards, which I recently attended. Kim has been a distinguished contributor to the realm of space law, dividing her time between here and the US. Despite the challenges of COVID, she has continued making a significant contribution to Australia. Her work is essential for Australia and for us having a stake in space and establishing our space sovereignty. And there's nothing more exciting to see than a friend and a local's name flash up on a big screen as a finalist in something like the Australian Space Awards, let me assure you. Well done, Kim.
But it's about more than just directly working in space industries, because advances in space are going to improve countless sectors right here on earth, and especially here in Australia. Currently Australia's satellite system assists in mining and agriculture, supporting industries that make up the backbone of Australia and employ thousands in my electorate. They monitor the climate and help protect us from freak weather events.
What have we got to look forward to? Well, through my committee work, I have had the privilege of meeting companies such as Solar Space Technologies. Recently founded, this Australian based company has the ambitious objective of delivering solar power generating satellites into orbit by 2027. They want to connect to the grid and power us through solar rays unimpeded by cloud. There is no cloud out in space. Solar Space Technologies want to take this country to touch the stars and bring the sun's energy direct to earth. We've got Gilmour Space doing incredible work, and Southern Launch sending satellites from regional South Australia. There is so much opportunity and there is so much innovation happening right now.
So these are the reasons we need to lend our support to this growing sector, and I lend my support to this motion from the member for Lindsay.
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (18:28): I rise to support the wonderful motion from the member for Lindsay and particularly to take note of the $1.5 billion for the Modern Manufacturing Initiative, which will see the government strategically invest in projects that help manufacturers scale up and create jobs, because, in this post-COVID period, we have an opportunity to pivot as a country to the jobs of the future. Our six National Manufacturing Priorities are: resources technology and critical minerals processing; food and beverage; medical products; recycling and clean energy; defence; and, of course, the very exciting space.
We recently saw NASA's Perseverance land on Mars. This mission was tasked with answering the question of whether life ever existed on a planet other than earth. Perched on the arm of the robotic rover is a key tool called PIXL. It takes up-close images of scan areas with X-rays, looking for chemical signatures of microbial life in three-billion-year-old rocks. It is incredible to think about. The Pilbara crater, more than 1,200 kilometre north of Perth in Western Australia, is one of the few places on earth where it is still possible to find parts of the crust of the earth the same age as the rocks on Mars. And that's where some very talented Australian scientists come in. While Australian scientist Dr Abigail Allwood's team has been working on PIXL, engineers at JPL and the Queensland University of Technology have been building software to crunch the data as it comes down from Mars. It will then be Dr David Flannery's job to guide the team of scientists on the mission where to go and which samples to take. The work doesn't stop there. Ninety Mars days after the rover lands, a team of 500 scientists in JPL and the QUT will analyse data around the clock, now and until at least April 2023.
The morning Perseverance landed on Mars, backed by Australian scientists and technology, also marked the time the Morrison government made a big announcement about Australia's own space future. I was very proud that at the time I was on a delegation to the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex as part of the inquiry into space by the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources. Real-time data was being beamed down from Mars as we were there. Incredibly, this mission was on time and on target after many years of planning and many months of the mission. It was incredible to see that it landed within the target it was supposed to, literally on time. They predicted that many months before.
The Moon to Mars initiative was launched as part of the new partnership on future space cooperation between the Australian Space Agency and NASA, backed by a $150 million investment into Australian businesses and researchers to join this endeavour. The Moon to Mars initiative is a five-year program that has three integrated elements: firstly, the Supply Chain Program; secondly, the Demonstrator Program; and, thirdly, the Trailblazer Program, which showcase the best of Australian innovation and capability. To help guide these space projects, the Morrison government will be backing in space manufacturing with a space manufacturing priority road map, which will ensure many more missions and global opportunities happen now and into the future, bringing more Australians into the space industry to compete in what is now a global market, making it possible to commercialise new products and integrate them into global supply chains.
As part of our parliamentary delegation, I was also delighted to meet the new Australian Space Agency head, Enrico Palermo. I wish him well in his new role. He has a dynamic and innovative approach to what is an expanding role for Australia in the area of space. Mr Palermo brings with him strong skills, experience and global connections, which will greatly serve our Australian Space Agency to scale up on a global stage. As we know, the agency itself has been tasked to grow the space industry to $12 billion and, in part, create a further 20,000 jobs by 2030.
The Morrison government is continuing its investment in our growing space sector because we see the value in this. It's a highly innovative and inspirational sector which is providing the jobs of the future. That's why the Morrison government has organised Australia's unique modern manufacturing opportunities to ensure Australia is not left behind. We have the funding, the road maps and the strategies to grow the sector and to provide Australian companies with the opportunity to expand and compete on a global scale. These opportunities are vast and ready for lift-off.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (18:33): This motion purports to celebrate the government's $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy, with the space sector and industry a big part of that. There is a slight bit of hypocrisy in all of this. The motion notes that space is one of the six national priorities in the government's manufacturing plan. We all know and have heard that the Australian space industry has a proud history. We have been part of every deep space mission NASA has ever flown, going back to 1957, with the establishment of the Woomera facility in South Australia. In 1962, the CSIRO Parkes telescope supported NASA's Mariner 2 mission. And we all know about Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek, which played a vital role, and a famous role, in humanity's great adventure to the moon. I think we all agree we want to see Australia be part of the exploration of space in the 21st century, be a leader in this space, be part of the future and be able to participate in a trillion dollar industry which will provide enormous opportunity for Australians, particularly our STEM professionals.
But let's take a closer look at the basis of the motion, which was the $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy the government announced in October last year. They promised that this investment would go to six key target areas: resources technology and critical minerals processing; food and beverage; medical products; recycling and clean energy; defence; and space. They promised that this program would spend $1.5 billion over 10 years and create 380,000 direct and indirect jobs. The Prime Minister promised to spend $48 million to create 2,600 new manufacturing jobs in the 2020-21 financial year—this financial year; the one ending in seven days. The Prime Minister has actually spent $79 million—wow, that sounds good; it's more than the $48 million he promised. He will have spent it by 1 July, but guess what? With that $79 million he created 78 manufacturing jobs. That's more than a million dollars per job. Don't worry, Prime Minister, you've still got seven days left to create the other 2,522 manufacturing jobs to reach your government's target!
But we shouldn't be surprised by this because this government doesn't really believe in backing Australian manufacturing. It's actually not in their DNA. The fact is that, since this government took office with Prime Minister Tony Abbott, we have lost 90,000 jobs in Australian manufacturing. Let that sink in—90,000 pairs of boots have been hung up. The government dared—goaded—car manufacturers to leave Australian shores. And they did. Hundreds of workers in my electorate of Wills lost their jobs when the Broadmeadows Ford factory closed in 2016. The Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources's own estimate showed that 50,000 Australian manufacturing jobs were lost just last year—50,000 jobs gone under their watch in one year. The government's own budget forecast papers have said that there's a cut to real wages over the next four years. For a manufacturing worker that is a cut in real wages of $7,800. There are fewer jobs, lower wages and no vision for the future. They can put up as many motions as they want, but this government's record is one of neglect.
Unlike this government, Labor have a vision for a future made in Australia. We want Australia to be a country that makes things. We have a plan to do it. A Labor government will deliver a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund for projects that will create secure, well-paid jobs, rebuild our local manufacturing industry and capacity, and make Australia more competitive and self-sufficient. A Labor government will deliver an Australian Skills Guarantee to make sure one in 10 jobs on major federal infrastructure projects are given to apprentices, trainees or cadets. A Labor government will make more trains in Australia with our National Rail Manufacturing Plan and will ensure every dollar of federal funding spent on rail projects creates local jobs. A Labor government will deliver a Defence Industry Development Strategy to ensure that the $270 billion invested in the sector uses local workers. Only Labor will deliver the investment and leadership to rebuild Australian manufacturing because we actually believe in it. We believe in creating good and secure jobs and we believe in making Australia more competitive and self-sufficient.
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (18:38): I remember staring up in wonder at the heavens at night as a child, as I'm sure all of us did, seeing the stars and the moon up there and wondering at the vastness of space. Many of us also remember the space race, that era after we first put a human into space and then onto the face of the moon, when there was so much activity happening right around the world in taking forward what was often referred to as the final frontier. We owe so many things in our daily rituals—mobile phones, GPS satellite navigation and connecting to the internet, which we pretty much all do—to space and to our understanding and utilisation of space. Today, space is often described as the fourth industrial revolution. Some predictions are that global market growth could see that market reaching $750 billion in the period between 2018 and 2040.
So, recognising this growth, in 2018 the coalition government launched the Australian Space Agency, with the specific task of tripling our market share and creating another 20,000 jobs by 2030. Underpinning this is the Australian Civil Space Strategy, which sets out a very clear plan to diversify the economy, to connect internationally, to develop national capabilities and to ensure the safety and security of our space infrastructure and operations. It also makes clear that meeting Australia's international obligations and supporting a rules based order are central to us achieving that vision. The strategy outlines seven priorities: earth observation; communication technologies; position navigation and timing; space situational awareness and, importantly, debris monitoring; leapfrog research and development; robotics and automation on earth and in space; and, finally, access to space.
Since the establishment of the Australian Space Agency, we have committed $705 million to growing the civil space sector. These investments include: $150 million for the Moon to Mars initiative; $19½ million to the Space Infrastructure Fund; the $15 million International Space Investment initiative; $6 million for the Australian Space Discovery Centre; $389 million for Geoscience Australia to look at better GPS systems; $55 million to support the development of new technologies through the SmartSat CRC; and, finally, $26 million—I know it's a lot of money, but you've borne with me very well—to CSIRO to support space science here in Australia.
The space sector is an emerging area of competitive advantage and industry growth. That is why our Australian government provided an additional $13 million over four years and ongoing funding of $3.4 million a year to the Australian Space Agency in the most recent budget. This additional funding will strengthen the agency's capability to deliver a world-class, responsive regulatory system, support the industry's rapid growth and facilitate high-tech job creation.
This Morrison government is backing Australian manufacturing as well as the science and research that underpins it. That's part of our economic recovery plan as we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic in this recovery phase. The 2020-21 budget included an investment of $1½ billion over four years for the Modern Manufacturing Strategy. This will allow Australian manufacturers to scale up, compete internationally and create more jobs. The government's identified space as a national priority for manufacturing because it's an area of growing competitive advantage and strategic importance.
It's all about playing to Australia's strengths, and I'm pleased that my own home state of WA is playing an important role. Last year, it was announced that Perth would be the home of the Australian Space Automation, Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Control Complex, or SpAARC. This was awarded to Fugro Australia Marine with a $4.5 million commitment. The new space race is on. We're seeking to leverage our advantages and advance the interests of Australia, including in space.
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (18:43): Opportunities to become part of the international space supply chain are growing across the globe, and Queensland is well positioned to harness our natural potential. By 2025, Queensland's space industry will be recognised as a leading centre in Australasia for launch activities, ground systems, Earth observation, niche manufacturing, robotics and automation for space. The Queensland government's Space Industry Strategy will add between $3.5 billion and $6 billion to Queensland's economy and up to 6,000 jobs by 2036.
We are home to Black Sky Aerospace, who in December 2020 became the first and only Australian company with the capability and licence to manufacture large-scale solid rocket motors. Dr William Crowe at High Orbit Robotics in Sydney is also doing fantastic work, combining intelligent control with space based cameras to acquire high-quality imagery of valuable assets in space.
I fully support any endeavour to assist Australian businesses to become part of then international space supply chain. But it seems that the Morrison government are more willing to invest in manufacturing and jobs anywhere but at home, where it really matters. We've just heard from the member for Wills that we've lost 90,000 manufacturing jobs under this government—90,000 pairs of boots that have been hung up because this government doesn't care about manufacturing, doesn't care about bringing Aussie jobs back home.
In my electorate of Lilley the aviation, tourism and transport sector has been haemorrhaging jobs for the last two years—Virgin Australian workers, both at head office and the airport; Qantas baggage handlers; dnata workers; Volgren workers; and, potentially, Greyhound Australia workers. Before the Morrison government sends a man to Mars, may I suggest that that they try the manufacturing businesses in Virginia in my electorate of Lilley first.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): 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.
Member for Bowman
Ms BUTLER ( Griffith ) ( 18:46 ): I move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) it has now been more than two months since the Member for Bowman said he would step down from all of his parliamentary positions;
(b) the Member for Bowman remains the Chair of the Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Training, a role for which he is paid an additional amount in the order of $23,000 per annum;
(c) the Prime Minister and his government have repeatedly voted to protect the Member for Bowman's position despite the Prime Minister's acknowledgement that the Member for Bowman's conduct had been inappropriate; and
(d) that by protecting the Member for Bowman, the Prime Minister is tacitly endorsing his inappropriate conduct, and the Prime Minster is also putting his own political interests ahead of his responsibility to show leadership; and
(2) calls on the Prime Minister to unequivocally reject the Member for Bowman's conduct by ensuring his removal from his lucrative committee chair role.
A number of women have given separate accounts of online abuse from the member for Bowman. One woman told Nine News that the member for Bowman had subjected her to false claims and social media abuse. In one of his online posts the member for Bowman said to the woman: 'You got nasty, threatened self-harm. Unfortunately for you, I make the rules and you follow them'—that's a quote. The woman said the member's online claims against her were baseless and the allegations left her suicidal. The same report said that the member for Bowman had targeted another woman with online abuse for six years.
The member for Bowman has also made comments directed to Ms Kim Richards MP, the state member for Redlands. He posted a photograph of her taken from a distance without her knowledge. He offered a $100 reward to anyone who could identify the people she was meeting with at 6 pm on Valentine's Day. A 29-year-old woman came forward and said the member for Bowman took a photo of her while she was at work and bent over exposing her underwear beneath denim shorts. A female professor talked about the member's conduct towards her on a flight that had made her uncomfortable. That conduct included making a comment about her figure and trying to get her to come out to an art gallery event 'for lots of cocktails'. A Labor Party official spoke of the member's conduct on a delegation overseas during which a delegate alleged the member's persistent requests for the phone numbers of female staffers caused concern. A hospitality worker, who was 19 years old at the time, spoke of the member approaching her to be her friend on Facebook and obtaining her name from her name badge for that purpose. She said: 'If it was any other person, I would've thought that was a bit weird for a middle-aged man to ask a 19-year-old to add them on Facebook. It wasn't a very comfortable situation. It just felt very forced and I sort of had to engage with it. I feel like you shouldn't have to agree to someone just because you felt obliged to do it because he's a high person in parliament or a high person in your community.' Another woman, an academic, said the member approached her by a direct message on Facebook. They had an exchange in which he eventually asked her if she was a skateboarder. She said that he then messaged her as follows: 'I'm happy just to meet skaties one at a time—starting with you'—followed by a wink emoji. She said: 'That is when I began to feel very uncomfortable.'
In addition to these examples it has been reported that the member for Bowman has operated more than 30 Facebook pages and profiles, some under the guise of community groups, which he used to promote political material. This is very strange behaviour.
The member for Bowman has offered some specific apologies to some of the women I've referred to. In addition, he has also made an apology at large to 'any person who has received correspondence from me which fell short of what they expect from an MP. I intend to own that behaviour and apologise without hesitation.' He has also attributed his conduct to recently diagnosed ADHD, though he himself has said that is not an excuse. He has obtained empathy training and clinical counselling. Despite those things, and despite the apologies that he has made, some of his other comments and conduct have thrown doubt on whether he is genuinely apologetic or remorseful, such as interjecting during this debate and at one point claiming not to know what it was he was apologising for.
The member has not made good on a commitment he made in respect of parliamentary roles. It's been reported that on 27 March he said he would step down from all parliamentary roles effective immediately. When parliament returned in May, Labor and the Australian people were surprised to learn that the member for Bowman had not stepped down from his role as Chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training.
What has been even more surprising, though, has been the Prime Minister's decision to protect the member for Bowman against calls to resign from that role. The Prime Minister has previously described the member for Bowman's online behaviour as 'disgraceful'. Female Liberal MPs have said the conduct was 'outrageous' or that they weren't 'comfortable' with it. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister and his government have voted over and over and over again to protect the member for Bowman's position as the chair of that committee—a position that yields additional salary in the order of $23,000 per year. Even the LNP in Queensland showed more leadership on this issue than the Prime Minister and federal government when they disendorsed the current member for Bowman for the forthcoming election.
The PM's lack of leadership sends a terrible message to the women of the Liberal Party, the women of Australia, the workplaces of Australia and victims of abuse who are considering whether to speak out. I ask the member for Bowman to show the character that the Prime Minister is unwilling to show and resign from his committee chair position. That would show genuine remorse and would assist in providing some support to the parliamentary concerns that have been raised in respect of his conduct over a number of years.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Owens ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (18:51): I second the motion. Which bit of 'I will step down from all parliamentary roles effective immediately' isn't clear? That's what I asked myself and that's what Labor's asked—especially the women of Labor—for the last two months following the member for Bowman's announcement after being exposed for unacceptable behaviour directed at women. It wasn't 'I will step down from all parliamentary roles effective immediately provided I don't lose any pay.' It was a very clear statement, yet it hasn't happened. The member for Bowman is still Chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training and, in spite of the Prime Minister describing the behaviour as 'disgraceful' and endorsing the course of action that the member had outlined, it hasn't happened. In spite of Labor giving the government 41 opportunities to sanction the member for Bowman for his failure to keep his word and to do the right thing for once, it hasn't happened. The $23,000 a year additional amount that he receives he continues to receive.
Earlier this month opposition members of the committee that he chairs expressed deep concern about his conduct and said that maintaining his role diminishes the committee, the House and the parliament. But this is the sort of person the Prime Minister supports to stay in a committee chair role: someone who created Facebook pages purporting to be community pages, it's reported; someone who is alleged to have trolled women online, and they have spoken at length about it—not just a comment here or there but over many years. There was certainly a commentary about this behaviour from women at the women of Macquarie forum that I held last night via Zoom with the member for Sydney. There was fury at the lack of action. 'No consequences' was how one woman described it. Another said it was a 'total demonstration of incapacity to listen, to care or to take responsibility'. As another pointed out, the Prime Minister won't move against the member for Bowman, because it's too much risk having a minority government.
But it isn't just the member for Bowman whose role weighed heavily on the nearly 200 women I met with last night and whose actions they took as a sign of deep disrespect for women by this government. It was the decision by the Nationals to re-elect the member for New England as their leader. Let's think about the Deputy Prime Minister and what women from his own side of politics say. Pauline McAllister, New South Wales trustee of the party and a member of more than two decades described it as a 'backwards step'. She said:
I think there are a lot of women who feel a bit disenfranchised. I think there will be a lot of women who will be totally disappointed.
Well, no wonder they're disappointed, because the eight-month investigation by the New South Wales Nationals was unable to reach a conclusion about sexual harassment allegations made about the member for Armidale, which preceded his resignation in 2018.
But it isn't just that. It's the discussion reported about the attitude to families accessing early learning for their children—comments that women who use professional childcare services are somehow outsourcing their parental responsibilities. There are so many things wrong with that point of view. It takes us back to the 1950s. There's no recognition from the people who made those comments that it's hard enough to balance working and parenting, but the government members think parents need more judgement about how they do it. It isn't even just that. It's the lack of women who sit on the government benches. It's the fact that, when two ministers rose to speak on a question in question time today, and one was a woman and one was a man, it was the more junior male minister who prevailed. That said it all.
But it isn't just that. It's the way the Prime Minister has to be reluctantly dragged into action when it's anything to do with women, like taking action to investigate what happened to Britney Higgins. You know what women told me last night? They said they were tired, physically and mentally—exhausted, some of them—from the endless fight to be treated with respect, from juggling responsibilities and from the pressures that they face. They're also tired and dispirited when they see men like the ones who sit opposite us in parliament, the born to rule, believing that a woman's place is in the home, not the House or the Senate. Making some token promises in a budget is not going to change who they are. Even the member for Bowman agreeing to step down, or being forced to step down, as committee chair won't change who they are. Until they actually change, it's all just an act. They know it, we know it, the women on the other side know it and the women of Australia certainly know it.
Ms COKER (Corangamite) (18:56): I strongly support this motion and thank the member for Griffith for bringing it to the House. Three months ago, the Prime Minister labelled the conduct of the member for Bowman as disgraceful, but, despite this, the member for Bowman remains. He's still a Liberal Party representative and chair of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. The coalition continues to vote to keep the member for Bowman in the parliamentary role he promised to stand down from.
The member for Bowman's behaviour and attitude towards women have proven to be unacceptable, yet he continues to receive the support of the Prime Minister and his government. What the women of Australia and the women in my electorate want is a Prime Minister who shows leadership, a Prime Minister who stands up for women and a Prime Minister who respects and supports women and will condemn others who do not. Unfortunately, this Prime Minister is always prepared to put politics before principles.
We're aware of the disturbing stories that establish beyond question a character unfit to represent the people of Bowman in this House. As is so often the case, there were warnings about the kind of person the member for Bowman was long before he entered the House. The former chair of the Bowman branch had warned a senior Queensland LNP state executive about the member for Bowman. He said: 'We took a two-page document in and said we had a major problem with this bloke. He popped it in the safe and said, "Leave it with me." I never followed it up and we never heard anything more about it.' Unsurprisingly, the member has continued to behave inappropriately since that warning was issued.
The member for Bowman has viciously attacked female constituents from behind his computer screen. The Prime Minister requested that the member for Bowman apologise for these attacks, which the member for Bowman did, before undermining his own apology piece by piece. The member for Bowman used the first day back in parliament to claim he had been misrepresented, revealing through his words his complete contempt for the women he had mistreated.
The list of women who have reported untoward contact with the member for Bowman is growing by the day. A co-passenger on a flight reported:
I was deeply uncomfortable. I felt like I was trapped next to someone who was just being completely inappropriate, irrespective of their job, being completely inappropriate.
A colleague on an official trip said:
When we when we met a new group or went to a new location, it was only the young women he asked for phone numbers … not the men.
A teenager working at Taco Bell was asked by the member for Bowman to be added on Facebook. The girl said:
It wasn't a very comfortable situation. It just felt very forced and I sort of had to engage with it.
… … …
I felt very creeped out.
And then the member for Bowman took a photo of a Brisbane woman's backside without her consent while she was on her knees stacking a bar fridge. That woman has since filed a formal complaint. Today the member for Bowman sits in this House, a community leader in Australia's Liberal government, at the insistence of the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister defends the member's chairmanship on the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training.
Beyond the member for Bowman's disgraceful behaviour, this story exposes for all to see the character failings of the Prime Minister. On the alleged sexual assault of Brittany Higgins, metres from his office, the Prime Minister said he didn't know about it. On the allegations of sexual assault against the former Attorney-General, the Prime Minister said he didn't read them. In the wake of public violence against women, the Prime Minister refused to get up from his desk and meet the organisers of the March4Justice rally here in Canberra. These actions speak louder than words. The standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and the Prime Minister is prepared to ignore disgraceful behaviour because he needs the numbers in the House. What these actions reveal is a Prime Minister and Liberal and National parties that do not care enough about women. They do not respect women, and they are always prepared to put politics before principles. Now is the time for redemption, Prime Minister. Step up, do what is right by the women of Australia and by the women of my electorate and dismiss the member for Bowman.
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (19:01): The member for Corangamite said something insightful, then, about the standards you walk past. The standards you sit beside say a lot about you too. The member for Ryan is often on his feet in the parliament talking about cyberbullying, talking about the eSafety Commissioner—
An opposition member: Protecting families.
Ms RYAN: Protecting families. And yet this evening he unfortunately finds himself in the whip's chair, having to sit through this motion. My sympathy and empathy go to the member for Ryan for having to sit beside the member for Bowman while his history in this place and in his electorate is dragged through this Chamber. It is a really unfortunate thing that we are here tonight, because we don't need to be here.
The Prime Minister said he was going to fix this problem. I stand here, surrounded by women from the Labor Party who are in this Chamber tonight to make sure that our voices are heard. I stand here as a member of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training with the member for Cooper, who is also a member of that committee, to put on the record into Hansard exactly how we feel. We've written to the Prime Minister. We've asked him to dismiss or replace the member for Bowman as chair of that committee, and it is not too much to ask. I'm going to say what I've said in that committee room before: the member for Bowman's presence as chair of that committee threatens the integrity of that committee. It threatens its work.
As a stakeholder in the industries of education and training, being asked to come into a room to give evidence to the member for Bowman is now beyond a joke. This is a public scandal. The fact that we have had to come into the Federation Chamber and air this dirty linen again when it has already been reported in the press speaks volumes about the integrity of a couple of people that we work beside in this building. One of those people is in the Chamber tonight. The empathy training as clearly failed. The integrity training may need to follow, because when the member for Bowman was asked a question by women elected to represent people in this building, not just on our side of politics, his interjection earlier talked about his political enemies. I can't put it clearly enough. The parliament is about a contest of ideas, and there isn't a woman on this side that won't do that job with relish. But we spend our time in this building talking to people on the other side respectfully and inclusively. We work on committees.
The first time I saw the member for Bowman was in this Chamber in my first term. The member for Bowman came into the Chamber and delivered a speech just like this, on private member's business. He then took out a container full of corrosive oil of some description, opened the container, spilt it all over the table and was sanctioned by then Speaker Bishop; he was named for his behaviour in this Chamber. So he didn't have empathy then. He has a record of showing an absolute lack of empathy for the people he represents through his behaviour on his own MP Facebook page. There are options. We all know what the options are. We all have social media pages that bear our name and our status. We have ways to set them up automatically so that, if someone swears, their comment is hidden so that it protects other people who want to interact with us on social media.
All of us in this room have been trolled at times. I remember spending one of the first weekends as the member for Lalor having had a comment about somebody's sexism and having to monitor my page for 16 hours a day for four days while I was attacked by men of various ages, some particularly young. We live this. We live it every day. But I don't think the women in the electorate of Bowman, as residents of a community, need to be attacked by their own member, by the person they send here to represent them. And how do the men of Bowman feel? A lot of people have completely forgotten that the world is full of good men—good men who respect women, good men who respect one another, good men with integrity, good men with empathy and good men who would like to see the member for Bowman removed from the committee and removed from this parliament.
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (19:06): It is a privilege to be in this great House. It is a privilege. There's not an ounce of me or any of my colleagues here who believe it is an entitlement. To represent your electorate, to have been elected, is one of the greatest honours. I don't want to do anything, and I know my colleagues here tonight well enough to know that they would not want to do anything, to risk any of our constituents saying that we are not here for them, because they put us here. They asked us to be their voices in this House, and we would not sully that. I would not let them down for a moment, I can tell you. At the end of my time in this House—at the end of my life, actually, don't we all want to look back and say to ourselves, 'We made a difference, a small difference, somehow'? Not everybody has the opportunity to be elected to parliament to make an actual, real-life difference to the lives of people of our constituency in this country. We don't treat it as an entitlement. I certainly don't take this for granted any second of any day.
But I look at the behaviour of the member for Bowman, and I wonder, like the rest of the country is wondering, about the litany of events that we've heard about—and we haven't made these up; we are actually repeating the voices of the people that have complained about the member. We are raising and amplifying their voices in this House. We are all wondering about this, along with all those women—and they can't all be very carefully planted enemies of the member. They can't be. Nineteen-year-old girls cannot necessarily be enemies. So we are merely amplifying their voices. We're not making this up. And they are not all political enemies—I cannot believe that. That would be very, very strange.
We are all scratching our heads and we are all saying, 'Why on earth has the Prime Minister not sacked the member for Bowman as the chair of the committee that I and the member for Lalor are on?' What is going on here? This is the question that is not being answered. We all know the facts. We all know what has happened. We all know his character. We all know he apologised to the House then went away for empathy training. Then, between that and the member coming back, something happened—I don't think it was empathy training—that changed his mind. What changed his mind? He was no longer sorry. All of a sudden there were all these excuses—'they are political enemies', 'it was a mistake', 'it wasn't that bad', 'you misread it' and 'they misinterpreted it'. It just doesn't add up. No-one believes that. The question is: why? Is it merely because the member for Bowman thinks he's entitled to be here in this House and that he's entitled to be chair of this committee? He does not represent his constituency—
A division having been called in the House of Representatives—
Sitting suspended from 19:10 to 19:35
Federation Chamber adjourned at 19:35