The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
BILLS
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021
Explanatory Memorandum
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (12:01): Mr Speaker, I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum to the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2021.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) 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:
(1) acknowledges the bill provides for reduced rates of customs duty for goods required to combat the COVID-19 pandemic;
(2) notes that the Government has failed to outline a long-term plan to support local industries that are of strategic importance and in our national interest to safeguard; and
(3) further notes that the Prime Minister's refusal to secure a variety of vaccines in accordance with world's best practice has left Australians dangerously exposed against highly infectious COVID-19 variants".
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (12:02): The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2021 amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement measures that encourage continued research and development in the automotive sector, enable Australia to fulfil defence commitment and facilitate access to supplies that support the health and wellbeing of the Australian community. This bill incorporates three customs tariff proposals that were tabled in the parliament earlier this year: Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2021, which was tabled in February, extended to 30 June 2021 the free rate of customs duty for prescribed medical and hygiene products, such as face masks and certain disinfectants. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2021, tabled in March, provided for concessional treatment for imported goods for use in the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Program. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 3) 2021, which was tabled in May, provided for the concessional treatment of prescribed goods that are for use in research and development activities for motor vehicles or their components designed or engineered in Australia. In accordance with these customs tariff proposals, the amendments in this bill will extend existing schedule 4, item 57, and insert new items 58 and 39A into the Customs Tariff Act 1995. I thank all who participated in the debate and commend the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2021 to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Scullin has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (12:04): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Ms SWANSON (Paterson) (12:06): I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) international trade will be crucial to Australia's post COVID-19 economic recovery; and
(2) the Government's inability to secure a variety of vaccines has left Australians dangerously vulnerable—particularly those in trade exposed industries".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Is the motion seconded?
Mr Snowdon: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (12:07): I rise in support of the amendments to the Customs Tariff Act. The federal government is committed to protecting Australia's borders and keeping Australians safe. This is why goods that are imported into Australia require correct classification under the current Customs Tariff Act 1995. We also require importers to self-assess their goods, including the tariff classification of their cargo. This is how we monitor and control what comes into and what goes out of Australia, so it's vital that the information importers provide us is accurate.
The purpose of the Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 is to update Australia's current tariff codes in the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to be consistent with the updated international 2022 harmonised system. It's important for Australian traders and the trade industry that we implement the changes agreed to in the sixth review of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System because Australia needs to keep up with the times and keep the country's economy moving. The patterns of international trade are constantly changing and evolving every day, and new technologies are emerging, so the measures in this bill will ensure that Australia's customs tariff system, which is based on the harmonised system, reflects these changing patterns, technological developments, changing volumes of trade and the relative growth and decline in the importance of certain goods.
The World Customs Organization first developed the harmonised system to strengthen and support trade between countries with different trade regulatory arrangements. Every five years the World Customs Organization updates the international harmonised systems tariff headings and subheadings to reflect changing trade patterns and emerging goods. Australia is one of almost 200 countries that use the harmonised system. The harmonised system has 97 chapters, split into headings and subheadings. Each heading and subheading has a unique code and description, and these can be used to classify all tradeable goods. These codes and descriptions are agreed to by all 198 members of the World Customs Organization, or WCO, including Australia. Australia independently determines the customs duties that apply to goods traded into Australia. We use a structure provided by the harmonised system, supplemented by domestic subheadings, to identify those goods that are subject to Australian customs duties. All WCO members, including Australia, need to implement the 2022 harmonised system in their domestic tariff codes by 1 January 2022.
I would like to list some of the ways the 2022 harmonised system update will ensure that international tariff codes and Australia can keep pace with modern types of goods and changing trade patterns. There will be changes to reflect technological change. New classifications will be created for new and emerging products such as drones and 3D printers, and classifications will be removed for products that are no longer commonly traded, such as world globes and answering machines. There will be changes to reflect changing patterns of consumption. New classifications will be created for products with increasing or diversifying patterns of trade, such as edible insects and certain electronic components. There will be changes to improve monitoring of goods. New classifications will be created to improve the monitoring of goods such as e-waste and chemicals and substances controlled under international conventions.
As a businessman, I know how vital it is for Australian businesses who import and export goods and cargo that the Australian government implements these changes to the Customs Tariff Act on 1 January 2022. Ensuring Australia's tariff code reflects the most up-to-date version of the harmonised system will make it easier for our importers and exporters to trade with other countries. Our Australian businesses have already been through enough due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Australian government is committed to getting local businesses back on their feet so that they have the confidence to invest and take on more staff. This is why we must open more doors for them, to allow them to trade, grow, expand, create more job opportunities and thrive. The sooner the amending legislation is introduced, the sooner Australian businesses can begin preparing for the new version of the harmonised system.
On a very positive note, Australia was able to secure a number of important outcomes requested by Australian businesses in the process of negotiating the update to the harmonised system. These priority outcomes included securing our preferred definition of virgin olive oil, a single classification code for placebos in clinical trial kits, our preferred classification for LED lighting products and separate classification for synthetic diamonds.
As a rule, Australia's changes to our tariff code are required to be consistent with the updated harmonised system on a duty-rate-neutral basis—that is, whatever duty rate applied to goods under their old classification will continue to apply to the new item under the new classification. For the current update, three categories of goods cannot be updated on a duty-rate-neutral basis. These three categories of goods are flat panel displays, which are electronic display screens that enable viewing of images or text and are commonly incorporated in consumer electronics, cars, industrial and medical equipment and entertainment devices; semiconductor based transducers, which are electronic components that convert physical or chemical interactions into an electrical signal and vice versa—for example, temperature and light sensors; and electronic waste and scrap, which is goods such as computers, microwaves and batteries which can no longer be used for their original purpose. We will create new classifications for these three categories of goods as part of the 2022 harmonised system. Goods will transfer to these new classifications from many different existing classifications, which means it is not possible to maintain all the different duty rates that may have been applied to these goods. The duty rates for these three categories of goods will be set as free, to ensure that no importers are worse off.
As part of the 2022 harmonised system, we will create a new classification for tobacco products intended for inhalation without combustion, as used in e-cigarettes for vaping. These goods are currently classified as 'other tobacco' and have an excise equivalent customs duty of $1,576.57 per kilogram of tobacco content applied. We need to amend the Customs Act 1901 to ensure this new classification falls within the scope of existing border measures for tobacco products. This means importers will continue to pay duty on these goods at the border, like all other tobacco products, so there is no new risk to the revenue. We also need to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to ensure the excise equivalent customs duty rate applied to these goods is indexed twice a year like other tobacco.
International trade and investment are critical to boosting and strengthening Australia's economy. This is why updating the country's current tariff codes in the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to be consistent with the updated international 2022 harmonised system is of vital importance to Australian traders and trade industry. By making the amendments to the act and ensuring that Australia's tariff is consistent with the international harmonised system used by our trading partners, the Australian government can support our importers and exporters, and at the same time create jobs and further prosperity. Not only that but, as I mentioned earlier, the patterns of international trade are constantly changing and evolving.
We don't want Australia to be left behind and miss out on all the technologies or opportunities that are now starting to emerge and develop. We want Australia to be leading by example. We want to be able to keep up with these changing patterns in the international trade industry, technological developments, changing volumes of trade, and the relative growth and decline in importance of certain goods because, if we don't, we risk not being able to enhance the wellbeing of Australians by supporting economic growth and innovation both now and into the future. By saying yes to these amendments to the act, we are acting in Australia's best interests and opening further opportunities for our country's economic development.
For our local businesses across the country, international trade and investment open up all sorts of opportunities for Australians to expand their businesses, with market access across all areas of trade—goods, services and investment—and help to maintain and stimulate the competitiveness of Australian firms. This can be improved through trade agreements, which in turn benefit Australian consumers through access to an increased range of goods and services. I'm hoping these amendments will instil and inspire confidence in Australian businesses so they can import goods, trade, grow and thrive.
In short, this bill will open up doors and great opportunities for Australia's import and trade industry. I hope this House will see the benefit it will bring to traders, business owners and importers as well as to Australia's economy. We need to say yes to changes to boost and strengthen our economy. We're on the right track to recovering fully from this pandemic and we want to bounce back better than ever, so we can't let opportunities like these pass by. In saying that, I commend these bills to the House.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (12:17): [by video link] I am here today speaking from my electorate office in Brand, supporting the Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 on behalf of Labor. The purpose of the harmonised system changes bill is to amend the Customs Tariff Act to implement the outcomes of the World Customs Organization's sixth review of the harmonised commodity description and coding system, which I will call the 'harmonised system', which is scheduled to commence internationally on 1 January 2022.
The parliament is also considering at the same time the Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonised System Changes) Bill 2021, which seeks to amend the definition of 'tobacco products' in the Customs Act 1901. This second bill is required because the first bill provides that e-cigarettes and vapes will have their own classification code under the international harmonised system. Consequently, one of the oldest acts of this Australian parliament, the Customs Act 1901, must be amended to reflect this change, and the emergence of these new tobacco related and consumption products.
The amendments will ensure these products continue to be subject to the existing regulatory requirements such as tax and excise required of all tobacco products under the Customs Act. Labor will support both these bills but, in so doing, Labor has moved, through the member for Paterson, a second reading amendment because it is important to recognise that international trade will be crucial to Australia's post-COVID-19 economic recovery, and the government's inability to secure a variety of vaccine deals has left Australians dangerously vulnerable, particularly those in trade-exposed industries.
My comments today reflect principally on the Customs Tariff Amendment deal, which concerns the harmonised commodity description and coding system. The harmonised system allocates classifications and descriptions used to identify all tradeable goods. The World Customs Organization maintains this system, and WCO members, including Australia, review it on a five-yearly basis. The coding system changes to reflect emerging technologies and changing trade patterns, and also seeks to monitor trade in dangerous and lethal components or products. The system plays a very important role in helping to monitor goods that can be exploited to the detriment of their country of origin and the wider global community.
For those who are unaware—and I accept that may be many—the Customs Tariff Act provides an eight-digit classification with a six-digit international classification, supplemented by two digits for domestic purposes. These additional two digits are made use of by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for their very important analysis of trade. I note that tonight is census night, which the ABS is running, and I encourage everyone to participate. Of course, it's our obligation as citizens to participate, and I know everybody will. It's a very important night for the ABS and an important night for Australia, and it's important that everyone is counted.
I will go back to the harmonised system. Especially as the world changes and technology advances, so too does the classification of the goods we trade. Codes for new goods are added, some goods are reclassified and other goods codes drop off the list. For example: typewriters were once on this list and now, since the fifth review that the WCO carried out some five or six years ago, they are not. They can still be traded, but it will be done under a different code, a broader code.
Examples of the changes to the codes in the harmonised system that reflect changing patterns of consumption and trade around the world include new coding for edible insects, which are evidently becoming increasingly popular on international menus. I have to admit I've yet to see edible insects on the specials lists in the local restaurants here in Rockingham, but that is not to say that that day will not come! The harmonised system will now contain coding related to yoghurt containing added spices, coffee or coffee extracts, plants, parts of plants, cereals or baker's ware. Although I've not tried yoghurt with coffee, there are many yoghurt products on our supermarket shelves containing cereals or parts of plants and they will now have their separate coding.
We have all seen the rapid expansion of broccolini across the menus of Australia and this trend is evidently global, as the harmonised system has expanded the relevant coding subheading to ensure that all varieties of broccoli are grouped together. This is a sensible reform which now sees cauliflower grouped with broccoli, bringing all the products of the Brassicaceae family together under the one code in the international trading system.
A new code has emerged to reflect the increasing volume of trade in truffles and certain varieties of mushrooms. Many will be aware of the high value of truffles, which is an indication of the challenges of harvesting them but also of their absolute deliciousness. The Australian Truffle Growers Association estimate that in 2020 Australia truffieres produced over 20,000 kilograms of truffles. They are produced in New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria, Tasmania and, of course, south-west Western Australia. Indeed, Manjimup in Western Australia accounts for 80 per cent of Australia's truffle production and is the largest producer of black truffles in the Southern Hemisphere. They are widely sought around the world, challenging the famous French black truffles. Earlier this year Manjimup hosted the 10th Truffle Kerfuffle, which is a festival celebrating all things truffle and other delights of the south-west of WA. It is held at the height of truffle season in June, which is an absolutely beautiful time to be here in the south-west of Western Australia. Ninety per cent of Western Australia's truffles are destined for export, and now this highly desirable product has its own code under the harmonised system.
Other products which have been given a separate code because they are increasingly present in international trade include 3D printers, smartphones and electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles. All are products that had not warranted such a classification under a previous review of the system. Surprisingly, solar water heaters, which many Australians have had on their rooftops for many years, have only now been coded separately, indicating the increased trade in these products globally.
What of the products that have declined? Like the typewriter that was the subject of the previous World Customs Organization review, answering machines are no longer much traded. In the mid-1990s, whole songs were written about the messages to leave on an answering machine. The De La Soul classic 'Ring Ring Ring' has little resonance today, but in 1991 this tune about an answering machine message was an absolute phenomenon. Like most pop phenomena, it became increasingly irritating the longer it went on. Now, like the album of 1991, De La Soul is dead. We may well say the answering machine is dead.
Also falling off a specific coding list to the more general codes are springs, including hairsprings used for clock and watch parts. Maps and hydrographic or similar charts of all kinds, including atlases, wall maps, topographical plans and world globes, are no longer separately identified as they are no longer traded in sufficient volumes. I know of a map shop that once had a sign declaring 'globes make good gifts'—evidently not so much anymore. Instead of world globes and the atlas that used to sit on the bookshelf of most homes we now tend to look to Google Earth or similar products. Consumer demands change, and international trade changes along with them. However, in saying that, I will note that the member for Paterson revealed to me today that, in fact, the last two things she purchased were a world globe and a map of the world to put on her office wall. So some things do remain the same!
Importantly the harmonised system is used in the monitoring of trade patterns to help conservation efforts. For example, in this review, the potential impact of the overexploitation of the African cherry tree in the wild because of the growing use of its bark by the international pharmaceutical industry will be monitored by the application of a dedicated code for this product. Many would be unaware that these new codes will help facilitate the monitoring and control of substances restrained under the chemical weapons convention and goods required for the production and use of improvised explosive devices.
Adjustment of the harmonised system also monitors substances that deplete the ozone layer, controlled by virtue of the Kigali amendments to the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal Protocol was an excellent example of the world working together on a massive environmental problem of human creation, and it should be pleasing for all that care for the environment to see international trading systems working and adapting to ensure trade in the ozone-depleting chemicals is actively monitored. As you can see from these examples, the harmonised system works to do much in international trade, including monitoring substances that endanger lives and the environment.
International trade is demonised in some activist circles to the extent that issues raised are sometimes not credible, are sometimes entirely unbelievable and are sometimes regularly untrue. At the same time there are many legitimate concerns surrounding the international trading system raised sensibly by thoughtful individuals and groups. It is important these concerns are addressed by governments and the international trade policy community. Equally I believe it is important that we recognise the good work done in the global interest by institutions, such as the World Customs Organization and all the nation states, including Australia, that are actively involved in those negotiations.
The coded harmonised system is an important and wholly undervalued tool in the global effort to curb the development of chemical weapons and improvised explosive devices and the re-emergence of products that endanger the ozone layer, and these are just three examples. There are more, as an examination of the explanatory memorandum associated with this bill will reveal.
I'd like to take this chance to thank the member for Blair for encouraging us to take a deeper dive into the harmonised system, enabling me to share this new knowledge of mine with the parliament today. To conclude I will say that Labor will support the changes proposed in the bills to appropriately adjust the harmonised system of commodity coding that enables international trade and so much more. I commend the bills to the House, and I commend the second reading amendment.
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (12:29): One-in-five jobs in Australia rely on trade. We have for a very long time been a trading nation. That's why it's so important that we keep pace with changes as they occur, and that's where this bill, the Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021, and the related bill kick in.
We've had some very interesting contributions so far touching on the importance of trade and of Australian businesses, and I note the member for Brand's comments about truffles. My wife also is a massive fan and will be delighted to hear that we're making it easier for those wonderful Manjimup truffles to be enjoyed right around the world. There was also an interesting contribution on broccolini. It's an amazing growth product, very good for your health and probably balanced out well with a bit of truffle oil on the side.
I'm really pleased today to make a contribution to this debate and to highlight the importance of this bill. The purpose of the customs tariff amendment bill is to update Australia's tariff codes, in the Customs Tariff Act, to be consistent with the updated international 2022 harmonised system. The harmonised system is the common name for the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System that is set to commence next January. The system is updated on a five-yearly basis to reflect the changing trade pattern and emerging goods, and this update will ensure that tariff codes can keep pace with modern types of goods.
For example, there are changes to reflect the changing patterns of consumption. New classifications will be created for products with increasing or diversifying patterns of trade, and this includes edible insects. I did a bit of research. It turns out that First Nations Australians have been eating insects for tens of thousands of years. In fact, there are 60 native insects traditionally consumed by First Nations peoples. It is something the wider community is, largely, yet to tap into. Edible insects is a very promising industry and is flagged to help us feed the growing population in the face of climate change, disruptions to food production systems and the rise of the conscious consumer. A good source of protein, the likes of beetles, ants, bees, wasps, crickets, grasshoppers, moths, butterflies and even termites may be on our supermarket shelves sooner than we think.
According to the CSIRO, edible insects are the fastest growing alternative protein market in the world. It's expected that the global edible insects industry will reach a total value of $1.4 billion by 2023 and grow at 44 per cent annually by 2025. Normally, some insects try to eat us, but now the humans are biting back—I was pausing there for laughter but all I got was crickets! Not to worry, I'll put in some canned laughter on Facebook.
Changes to reflect technological change are also captured in this bill, where new classifications will be created for new and emerging technologies. This includes things such as drones and 3D printers, and classifications will be removed from products that are no longer commonly traded. Speaking of drones, I recent visited a facility in my electorate run by a company called Orbital UAV. They make the engines that go into tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs. There is a booming—I might say, skyrocketing!—industry for UAVs right around the world and it's wonderful to see local Australian businesses tapping into that export market.
These guys at Orbital UAV, at Balcatta, manufacture the propulsion systems and flight-critical components of military drones. The drones are used for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in military operations and for other geospatial services. Orbital UAV has secured contracts with defence primes, and, with the UAV export market increasing, these updates will make it easier for businesses like this to get access to the goods they require to meet the challenges of a changing world.
Finally, there are also changes to improve the monitoring of goods. New classifications will be created to improve the monitoring of goods like e-waste, which is electronic waste, and chemicals. Australians are among the highest users of technology, and e-waste is one of the fastest growing types of waste. Millions of electronic devices, like televisions, computers and mobile phones, are discarded in Australia every year. This can cause significant environmental problems due to the toxic chemicals present in some of these devices, including lead, mercury and arsenic, which can pollute our soil and water and disrupt our ecosystems and, indeed, even our health. This bill will make sure that rules around the importation of these types of goods are tightened.
As a rule, changes implemented to our tariff code must be consistent with the updated harmonised system on a duty rate neutral basis—that is, whatever duty rate applied to goods under their old classification will continue to apply to the goods under their new classification. Three categories of goods cannot be updated on a duty rate neutral basis, and that includes flat panel displays, semiconductor based transducers and electronic waste and scrap. The Morrison government will create new classifications for these three categories of goods as part of the 2022 harmonised system. Goods will transfer to these new classifications from many different classifications, which means it's impossible to maintain all of the different duty rates. Rest assured duty rates for these three categories will be set as free to make sure that no importers are worse off.
As part of this system, we will also see a new classification of tobacco products intended for inhalation without combustion—that is, the products used in e-cigarettes. Changes will ensure this classification falls within the scope of existing border measures for tobacco products, meaning importers will continue to pay duty on these goods at the border like all other tobacco products.
All of these changes are going to help Australian businesses. Ensuring Australia's tariff codes reflect the most up-to-date version of the harmonised system will make it easier for our importers and exporters to trade with other countries. In this day and age, this could hardly be more important. Indeed, unfair and unwarranted tariffs imposed by China on Australian businesses have seen multimillion-dollar industries like the western rock lobster, wine and others being heavily impacted, and our farmers who usually export the bulk of their produce to China have also been hard hit. So we need to ensure that we are open to trading with other countries where our volumes of trade may traditionally not be as high. The Morrison government is absolutely committed to supporting just that: diversification of trade. Earlier this year we saw the Prime Minister establish, for example, the free trade agreement with the UK, increasing trade in goods and services, two-way investment, economic growth and job creation.
The sooner the amending legislation is introduced into parliament, the sooner Australian businesses can begin preparing for the new version of the harmonised system. In many ways, our world is greatly changing, and this bill will help us to keep pace with the changes that relate to the way we trade. It will also help Australian businesses to both import and export as we create the best future we can for all Australians.
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (12:38): I rise in support of the changes to the Customs Tariff Act in the Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 and the related bill. I want to acknowledge all those previous speakers who have spoken on such an important bill. It's not very often that you get to speak on bills like this in this place, but today is one of those days, and I'm very, very pleased to be able to speak on it.
Australia is a trading nation. It relies on its ability to trade with the world. It was once said of Australia that we relied on the back of the sheep. Thankfully we have diversified much of our income to minerals, education and all sorts of things which we trade with the rest of the world. The minister for agriculture often stands up in this place and talks about how in Australia we create five times the amount of food and fibre that we consume. So we need to be able to trade that with the world, and that is a part of our ongoing ability to be able to maintain our standard of living. In order for us to be able to do this, there are certain rules that we need to comply with—the WTO, for example. We're a proud member of the WTO, and we, as Australians, pride ourselves on being a part of the rules-based order. That's important not just when it comes to security but also when it comes to trade.
We see our relationship with China at the moment as an example. China has banned or put restrictions on some Australian goods, such as wine, beef, barley and some coal products. Those are decisions that have been made outside the international rules-based order, outside agreements—fundamental agreements—that we have made as members of the WTO. That is to the eternal shame of the Chinese Communist Party, and it's something that we should continue to fight on behalf of Australians, Australian businesses, Australian growers and Australian manufacturers so that China change their view on this and start observing the international rules-based order in how they deal with countries like Australia, because, as the Prime Minister often says, we will continue to stand up for Australia and Australians' interests, even if that means upsetting some of our international friends and other countries as well. We will continue to stand up for Australian interests, and certainly I will play my part in doing that.
Talking about WTO, trade and tariffs leads me to this bill. The purpose of the Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 is to update Australia's tariff codes in the Customs Tariff Act to be consistent with the updated international 2022 harmonised system. The 2022 harmonised system is the common name for the harmonised commodity description and coding system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you are absolutely fascinated by this subject and that you are absolutely on board with it, as most members are. But you'll be keen to know that these new provisions will commence on 1 January next year, in 2022. The World Customs Organization updates the international harmonised system on a five-yearly basis—not four years, not six years; five years—to reflect changing trade patterns and emerging goods. All World Customs Organization members, which includes Australia, need to implement the 2022 harmonised system in their domestic tariff codes once again by 1 January 2022. The 2022 harmonised system update will ensure that international tariff codes can keep pace with modern types of goods and changing trade patterns. There are changes to reflect technological change. For example, new classifications will be created for new and emerging products, such as drones and 3D printers. There are classifications for products that nobody wants to buy anymore, such as world globes and answering machines. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would not want to be in a business right now where you're trying to buy and sell world globes and answering machines, would you?
An honourable member interjecting—
And facsimiles—thank you to the member for Leichhardt. You just wouldn't want to be in that sort of business right now.
However, there will be new classifications created for products with increasing or diversifying patterns of trade—not that I would want to be in this sort of business, but edible insects, for example, are the 'in' thing! There will be changes in relation to those things. Other certain electronic components will also see new classifications because of increasing patterns of consumption. I don't know why anybody would want to eat edible insects, but I guess that's a matter for them!
There will also be new classifications created to improve the monitoring of goods such as e-waste, and chemicals and substances controlled under international conventions such as the chemical weapons convention and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. We all remember that chlorofluorocarbons used to be in fly spray and all the aerosols. Australia banned those, with good reason, because they deplete ozone.
As a rule, changes Australia implements to its tariff code are required to be consistent with the updated harmonised system on a duty rate neutral basis—that is, whatever duty rate applies to goods under the old classification will continue to apply to the good under its new classification. For the current update, three categories of goods cannot be updated on a duty rate neutral basis. These three categories of goods are: flat panel displays; semiconductor based transistors; and electronic waste and scrap. We will create new classifications for these three categories of goods as part of the 2022 harmonised system. Goods will transfer to these new classifications from many different existing classifications, which means it's not possible to maintain all the different duty rates that may have applied to these goods. The duty rates for these three categories of goods will be set as 'free', to ensure that no importers are worse off.
To be a little controversial—I'm never one to turn away from being a little controversial!—I want to turn to the changes to tobacco products. To any kids that might be listening to this: if you're smoking, tobacco is not good for you. Don't smoke, kids. If you're in the car, you shouldn't be smoking in the car. If you're a parent with kids in the back, you shouldn't be smoking with kids in the back. If you're an adult and you want to smoke: I'd love to be able to say you should just go ahead and do it, but you're not only impacting on your own health and your family's health; you're impacting on the public purse, because chances are you're going to get sick before you should get sick, and the public is going to have to look after you when you go into hospital. If you're smoking right now, put it out and quit smoking. You will be all the better for it.
However, I digress. The changes to tobacco products as part of the 2022 harmonised system will create a new classification for tobacco products intended for inhalation without combustion. These are the new fandangled e-cigarettes for vaping. I don't know too much about vaping; I will probably get lots of emails about vaping now because I've said that! What I do know is that they are full of chemicals. I've heard the argument before that vaping turns people away from cigarettes; I don't know if that's true or not. But breathing in chemicals can't be good for you, can it? It just can't be good for you. If you are smoking cigarettes or vaping, put it aside; it's probably not good for you. But if you are going to continue to vape, these goods are currently classified as 'other tobacco' and have an excise equivalent customs duty of $1,576.50 per kilogram of tobacco content applied. We need to amend the Customs Act to ensure that this new classification falls within the scope of existing border measures for tobacco products. This means importers will continue to pay duty on these goods at the border, like for all other tobacco products, so there is no new risk to the revenue, because that's all-important. We also need to amend the Customs Tariff Act to ensure that the excise-equivalent customs duty rates applied to these goods is indexed twice a year, like other tobacco.
Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, I know you are on the edge of your seat right now, but I want to conclude by saying that these changes will help Australian businesses. Australian businesses, both importers and exporters, are expecting these changes to be implemented by 1 January 2022. Ensuring Australia's tariff code reflects the most up to date version of the harmonised system will make it easier for our importers and our exporters to trade with other countries—and, as I said at the opening of my speech, that is a very important thing. We have to be able to trade with the world. These sorts of technical bills, whilst as boring as they possibly can be, are very, very important not just for our businesses but also for our country's revenue. The sooner the amending legislation is introduced into parliament, the sooner businesses can begin preparing for the new version of the harmonised system.
Australia was able to secure a number of important outcomes requested by Australian businesses in the process of negotiating the update to the harmonised system. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, you're wondering what changes we were able to secure, and that's a very good question. These priority outcomes included securing our preferred definition of virgin olive oil, a single classification code for placebos and clinical trial kits, our preferred classification for LED lighting products and a separate classification for synthetic diamonds.
The harmonised system has 97 chapters—almost as long as this speech!—split into headings and subheadings. Each heading and subheading has a unique code and description which can be used to classify all tradeable goods. These codes and descriptions are agreed by all 198 members of the World Customs Organization, including Australia. Australia independently determines the customs duties that apply to goods traded into Australia. We use the structure provided by the harmonised system, supplemented by domestic subheadings, to identify those goods that are subject to Australian customs duties. I am of a mind to ask for an extension of time, but I think I'll leave it there!
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (12:53): The Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 and the Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 and the Customs Act 1901, respectively. Together these two bills will implement the changes agreed to in the sixth review of the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, the harmonised system. The measures in the tariff amendment bill will ensure that Australia's customs tariff, which is based on the harmonised system, reflects the changing patterns of international trade, the emergence of new technologies and the international will to regulate certain goods of concern.
The World Customs Organization developed the harmonised system to strengthen and support trade between countries with different trade regulatory arrangements. Australia is one of more than 200 countries and economies that use the harmonised system. The harmonised system is of critical importance to Australian traders and industry. Ensuring that Australia's tariff is consistent with the international harmonised system used by our trading partners is an important part of the government's support for our importers and exporters.
The customs amendment bill is consequential to the amendments that we made to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 by the Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021. One of the amendments made by the tariff amendment bill creates a new tariff subheading for products such as e-cigarettes. Consequentially, the definition of tobacco products in the Customs Act 1901 needs to be amended to ensure that e-cigarettes remain subject to the same treatment as other imported products that contain tobacco. The customs amendment bill will amendment this definition. Can I thank members for their contribution to the debate, particularly the member for Fisher, and commend the Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021 to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Order! The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Paterson has moved as an amendment 'That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting other words'. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until the discussion of the matter of public importance.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Tariff Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (12:56): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (12:57): I'm speaking to this because there's been a change of order from the government that's just been made clear to us, that we're going to consider some messages from the Senate that we'd been told were coming later. So we're just getting the relevant speakers to the chamber to be able to do that. We'd been told that a different bill had come on, and taking those few minutes may well help us to have got there. That's my contribution to the third reading of the bill.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Charges) Bill 2021
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2021
Returned from Senate
Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendments or requests.
Treasury Laws 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) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before the heading specifying Corporations Act 2001, insert:
Part 1 — Main amendments
(2) Schedule 1, item 31, page 13 (line 5), omit "At the end of Chapter 2G", substitute "After Part 2G.4".
(3) Schedule 1, item 31, page 17 (lines 13 to 26), omit subsections 253RB(4) to (7).
(4) Schedule 1, item 31, page 18 (lines 21 to 35), omit subsections 253RC(4) to (7).
(5) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 15), after item 33, insert:
Part 2 — Other amendments
Corporations Act 2001
33A In the appropriate position in Chapter 2G
Insert:
Part 2G.6 — Exceptional circumstances
253T Exceptional circumstances — AGM
(1) A public company is taken to comply with subsections 250N(1) and (2) in relation to an AGM if:
(a) the company is in a class of companies specified in a determination under subsection (2); and
(b) the company holds the AGM within the period of extension specified in the determination.
(2) ASIC may, by legislative instrument, make a determination specifying a class of public companies, if ASIC considers that it may be unreasonable to expect the companies in the specified class to hold AGMs within the time required under section 250N because of a situation that is beyond the control of those companies.
(3) The determination must specify a period of extension of that time.
(4) The determination may be subject to specified conditions applying to public companies in the specified class. A company to which a condition specified in the determination applies must comply with the condition. The Court may order the company to comply with the condition in a specified way.
(5) Unless revoked earlier, the determination is repealed at the end of 12 months after the day on which it commences.
253TA Exceptional circumstances — virtual meetings
(1) An entity may hold a meeting of its members, using virtual meeting technology only (even if this is not required or permitted by the entity's constitution expressly), if:
(a) the entity is specified in a determination under subsection (2); or
(b) the entity is in a class of entities specified in a determination under subsection (2).
(2) ASIC may make a determination specifying an entity, or a class of entities, if ASIC considers that it may be unreasonable to expect the specified entity, or entities in the specified class, to hold meetings wholly or partially at one or more physical venues because of a situation that is beyond the control of the entity, or the entities in the class.
(3) The determination is:
(a) a notifiable instrument, if it specifies an entity; or
(b) a legislative instrument, if it specifies a class of entities.
(4) The determination may be subject to specified conditions applying to the specified entity, or to entities in the specified class. An entity to which a condition specified in the determination applies must comply with the condition. The Court may order the entity to comply with the condition in a specified way.
(5) Unless revoked earlier, the determination is repealed at the end of 12 months after the day on which it commences.
(6) A reference in this section to an entity is a reference to any of the following:
(a) a company;
(b) a registered scheme.
33B After section 1344
Insert:
1345 Exceptional circumstances — giving documents
(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply in relation to a document that is required or permitted under this Act to be given by an entity to another entity (the recipient) if:
(a) the entity giving the document is specified, or is in a class of entities specified, in a determination under subsection (5); and
(b) the document is specified, or is in a class of documents specified, in the determination.
Giving document by electronic communication etc.
(2) If the determination specifies that the document, or documents in that class, may be given in accordance with this subsection, then the document may be given:
(a) by means of an electronic communication; or
(b) by giving the recipient (by means of an electronic communication or otherwise) sufficient information to allow the recipient to access the document electronically.
(3) However, electronic communication or electronic access may only be used if, at the time the electronic communication is used or information about the electronic access is given, it is reasonable to expect that the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference.
Extension of time
(4) If the requirement or permission mentioned in subsection (1) is for the document to be given within a particular time, the document is taken to have been given within that time if:
(a) the determination specifies a period of extension of that time that applies to the giving of the document by the entity to the recipient; and
(b) the specified period of extension starts after the determination is made; and
(c) the document is given by the entity to the recipient within the specified period of extension.
ASIC may make determination
(5) ASIC may make a determination specifying:
(a) an entity, or a class of entities; and
(b) a document, or a class of documents, required or permitted to be given under this Act (including a class that is any such document); and
(c) one or more matters mentioned in subsections (6) and (7).
(6) ASIC may specify that the document, or documents in that class, may be given in accordance with subsection (2) (giving document by electronic communication etc.), if ASIC considers that it may be unreasonable to expect the specified entity, or entities in the specified class, to give the document, or documents in the specified class, in a physical form because of a situation that is beyond the control of the entity, or the entities in the class.
(7) To the extent that the document, or documents in that class, are required or permitted under the Act to be given by the entity, or the entities in the class, within a particular time (the original time), ASIC may specify a period of extension of that time applying in relation to the giving of the document or documents in that class, if ASIC considers that it may be unreasonable to expect the entity, or entities in the class, to give the document, or documents in the class, within the original time, because of a situation that is beyond the control of the entity, or the entities in the class.
Other matters relating to determination
(8) A determination under subsection (5) is:
(a) a notifiable instrument, if it specifies an entity; or
(b) a legislative instrument, if it specifies a class of entities.
(9) The determination may be subject to specified conditions applying to the specified entity, or to entities in the specified class. An entity to which a condition specified in the determination applies must comply with the condition. The Court may order the entity to comply with the condition in a specified way.
(10) Unless revoked earlier, the determination is repealed at the end of 12 months after the day on which it commences.
(11) This section has effect despite any election (however described) by an entity to be given a document in a physical form.
Part 3 — Application and transitional provisions
Corporations Act 2001
(6) Schedule 1, item 34, page 22 (line 17) to page 23 (line 3), omit section 1679B.
(7) Schedule 1, item 34, page 23 (line 25), omit the heading to section 1679F, substitute:
1679F Amendments made by Part 1 do not apply on and after 1 April 2022
(8) Schedule 1, item 34, page 23 (line 26), omit "16 September 2021", substitute "1 April 2022".
(9) Schedule 1, item 34, page 23 (line 27), before "Schedule 1", insert "Part 1 of".
(10) Schedule 1, item 34, page 23 (line 31), omit "16 September 2021", substitute "1 April 2022".
(11) Schedule 1, items 35 and 36, page 24 (lines 1 to 4), omit the items.
(12) Schedule 2, item 55, page 37 (after line 16), at the end of Part 10.56, add:
1683B Review of operation of laws
(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 to the amending Act to be conducted by an independent expert within 6 months after the second anniversary of the commencement of this section.
(2) The person who conducts the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.
(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.
Recommendations
(4) The report may set out recommendations to the Commonwealth Government.
(5) If the report sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, the report must set out the reasons for those recommendations.
Government response to recommendations
(6) If the report sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, as soon as practicable, and in any event within 3 months, after the report is first tabled in a House of the Parliament, the Minister must cause:
(a) a statement setting out the Commonwealth Government's response to each of the recommendations to be prepared; and
(b) the statement to be published on the Department's website.
1683C Amendments made by Schedule 2 to the amending Act cease to have effect if review of operation of laws is not conducted
(1) This section applies if the Minister:
(a) fails to cause a review to be conducted in accordance with subsection 1683B(1) within the period required by that subsection; or
(b) is given a written report of a review conducted in accordance with subsection 1683B(1), but fails to cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within the period required by subsection 1683B(3); or
(c) is given a written report of a review conducted in accordance with subsection 1683B(1) that sets out one or more recommendations to the Commonwealth Government, but fails to cause a statement to be published on the Department's website within the period required by subsection 1683B(6).
(2) This Act and the ASIC Act have effect, on or after the day mentioned in subsection (3), as if the amendments made by Parts 1, 2 and 4 of Schedule 2 to the amending Act had not been made.
(3) The day (the sunsetting day) is:
(a) the day after the end of the period referred to in the applicable paragraph of subsection (1), unless paragraph (b) of this subsection applies; or
(b) if there is more than one applicable paragraph in subsection (1)—the earliest day determined under paragraph (a) of this subsection for each of those paragraphs.
(4) To avoid doubt, nothing in this section affects the validity of anything that is done, or not done, in reliance on this Act or the ASIC Act as in force before the sunsetting day.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (13:00): I move:
That the amendments be agreed to.
Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (13:00): Labor will not be agreeing to the Senate amendments because, by agreeing to the amendments, we would be supporting the passage of the bill. While we have consistently voted in favour of schedule 1 of the bill, Labor are strongly opposed to schedule 2. It should not pass the parliament.
You couldn't make this up. In the same week that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has sounded the alarm, once again, on the need for urgent action on climate change, and while millions of Australians endure lockdown because of the Prime Minister's incompetence and delinquency on the vaccine rollout, the Morrison government has prioritised the passage of this bill—this bill!—which would make it easier for company directors to withhold important information from shareholders and harder for shareholders to take action against dodgy directors. This is what this rotten government has decided to prioritise.
Let's be clear about what we're talking about here. Schedule 2 of this bill will make it easier for company directors to withhold important information from shareholders and harder for shareholders to take action against dodgy directors. This is not a design flaw. It is not an unintended consequence. That is actually what the Morrison government is seeking to achieve with these changes.
Australia's continuous disclosure obligations require companies to keep markets informed of anything that could materially affect their share price. These laws protect shareholders, promote market integrity and, by extension, make it easier for Australian companies to raise capital. The current laws—that is, the laws that this government, this rotten government, is trying to amend—were put in place over 20 years ago by none other than former Prime Minister John Howard. They have served Australia and Australian retail investors very well. Continuous disclosure laws are too important to be messed around with or treated like an ideological plaything, but that is how the Morrison government is treating them. And it's a direct attack on the rights and interests of every shareholder in Australia, from mum and dad investors to self-funded retirees to large institutional investors. Every single Australian shareholder should be concerned about these changes.
As the Australian Shareholders Association has said about these changes:
So the new instruction to management from Boards could be, if you want to keep some information to yourself or exaggerate a bit just make sure you don't tell me so no one can sue me…
And yet last night, in the Senate, Liberal senators spoke passionately in support of the measures in schedule 2 of this bill. Forget about climate change, forget about the disastrously slow vaccine rollout, forget about fixing national quarantine: according to Liberal senators, the most important issue facing the country is that shareholders have too much power to hold dodgy directors to account and these Liberal senators think that shareholders shouldn't have that much power.
This morning in the pages of the Australian newspaper, while millions of his fellow Victorians endure their sixth lockdown, the Treasurer of Australia waxed lyrical about the importance of making it easier for companies and company directors to withhold information from their shareholders. That's what's occupying the mind of this Treasurer while his constituents in Kooyong and millions of others across Melbourne are forced to stay indoors because of the Morrison government's incompetence. Where do these people get off? If the Prime Minister and his Treasurer were half as passionate about the vaccine rollout or about fixing national quarantine as they are about letting dodgy directors off the hook, half the country wouldn't be in lockdown right now. Time after time after time, the Morrison government put their interests and those of their mates above the interests of Australians. Instead of doing everything in their power to get Australians out of lockdown, the Prime Minister and his Treasurer are using the national parliament to sneak through legislation to help their mates. They are not on the side of Australians.
I think it's important to conclude by reiterating a number of points I made in my second reading contribution when this bill was last in the House. The changes proposed by the Morrison government would put the narrow self-interest of a tiny number of individual company directors above the interests of millions of mum-and-dad investors, self-funded retirees and large institutional investors. As I noted when I delivered my speech in relation to this bill, according to a survey conducted by major commercial law firm King & Wood Mallesons, these changes do not even appear to be supported by a majority of senior company directors. The Mallesons survey asked 195 company directors and senior executives about the Morrison government's temporary changes to continuous disclosure laws. Only 11.3 per cent said that they relied on those changes, and almost 80 per cent said that the changes should not be made permanent, which is what's happening with these amendments in schedule 2 of this bill.
Why would the vast majority of company directors and senior executives oppose the Morrison government's attempt to make it easier for people like them to mislead or withhold important information from shareholders? My theory is that it's because most company directors understand that Australia's strict continuous disclosure laws are ultimately good for everyone. (Extension of time granted) They make Australian companies more attractive to investors, including international investors, and so make it easier for Australian companies to attract capital. In other words, Australia's strict continuous disclosure laws make it easier for company directors to do the job that they are there to do, and that is to promote the interests of shareholders. I also think that most company directors in Australia do the right thing and have no problem with laws that require them to do no more than the right thing, and that is to provide shareholders with timely and accurate information about the company that they've invested their money in.
It must come as a shock to the Morrison government to learn that there are people out there in the Australian community who are happy to do the right thing and who actually have no problem with laws that keep them accountable. That is a foreign idea to the Morrison government, which is a government with no standards and which is at war with transparency and any notion of accountability. When the Auditor-General discovered that the Morrison government had used $100 million of taxpayers' money as a Liberal Party slush fund—the so-called sports rorts affair—and revealed that the government had paid Liberal donors in Western Sydney $30 million for a $3 million block of land, the Prime Minister did not apologise. When the Auditor-General revealed that the $660 million national Commuter Car Park Fund was rorted by the Morrison government, the Prime Minister actually boasted about it. No minister took responsibility and no minister was reprimanded or sacked, because it's never the wrongdoer who is punished or held accountable by this Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Morrison has made it clear that ministers in his government can get away with pretty much anything. They can rort grant programs, use forged documents and even call a young woman who alleges that she was raped in the office of the Minister for Defence 'a lying cow'. Ministers can do all of these things and more with complete impunity. And with this bill the Prime Minister is telling company directors that he wants them to be able to act with impunity too, without having to worry about being held to account by shareholders. To their great credit, most company directors in Australia, at least according to the King & Wood Mallesons survey of company directors, have rejected the need for these changes because company directors are not like the current Prime Minister. Most company directors—and most Australians—have more integrity in their little fingers than the Prime Minister has in his entire cabinet.
The Treasurer actually says in his own explanatory memorandum that the main impact of the changes in schedule 2 of this bill will be to reduce the amount of time that companies and company officers must spend on ensuring that they've complied with their obligations to provide accurate and timely information to shareholders. The Treasurer thinks that's a good thing. I suppose it is a good thing for the small number of dodgy directors who do the wrong thing, but it's bad news for mum-and-dad investors and it's bad news for self-funded retirees and other individuals across Australia who make life-changing investment decisions on the basis of what they are told publicly by companies and by company directors. As I said at the outset, we support schedule 1 of this bill but we do not support schedule 2. So we will be opposing the bill in the House today.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): The question is that the amendments be agreed to. I think the noes have it.
An honourable member interjecting—I don't think we have two voices.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Have we got two voices?
Honourable members interjecting—No.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is a division required?
Mr Burke: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: there are two separate issues and I think some of the interjections might have confused them. The first issue is the concept of when two voices are required, because that goes to the question of whether a division is required. That doesn't change the fact that it is for the chair to call which way the chair thinks the vote went, based on what the chair has heard. If it was called for the noes, it is for those who object to that ruling to call for the division.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. On that basis, to avoid any further confusion, I will put the question again. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after discussion on the matter of public importance later today.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (13:13): I move:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government:
(1) must stop its ongoing campaign to remove supports for the Australian screen industry; and
(2) has not provided adequate support to Australian small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to insolvency and distress for business owners, suppliers, and employees".
The bill in front of us might be labelled as a Treasury bill but no-one should be fooled by this. This bill doesn't just make some innocuous changes to tax, to spending or anything like that here and there; the measures contained in this bill represent probably the biggest overhaul to the policy framework for Australia's screen industry in some years. I want to take a few steps back to explain this and give some recent history and context to tax support for our screen industry.
When people think of Australia's screen industry, too often we go to the big commercial successes;. We go to Gallipoli and Wake in Fright. On the small screen, we'll go to A Country Practice, The Secret Life of Us or PaperPlanes. More recently, we had three films all topping the box office last summer—The Dry, Penguin Bloom and High Ground. As a country, we're capable of making incredible film and television. But the Australian market is a small one in global terms, and premium film and television is very expensive to make here. Because we are an English-speaking country with a small population, we start with a competitive disadvantage.
If you simply work on the basis that Australian screen is only there for the big commercial successes, you can run that argument, but effectively that argument takes you to a point where there's very little Australian content left. The importance of screen policy shouldn't be judged by just the big commercial successes. It needs to be judged by whether or not we are telling stories that speak to Australians. So, as well as looking at the big commercial successes, like Gallipoli, like Crocodile Dundee, like Muriel's Wedding, we also need to look at those which might not have got off the ground at all were it not for support—Samson and Delilah, Hearts and Bones, Alex & Eve; those are films that some people here will have seen, but many won't have. Samson and Delilah: for many people living in remote First Nations communities, that story being told was incredibly important to them. Hearts and Bones: for people particularly in the African Australian community in Melbourne, to see the validity of their story being told in an Australian film on the big screen was important and real and dependent on getting these settings right. In my own part of Sydney, having Alex & Eve, where you recognise on the screen the places that you eat in Lakemba and where a story that is true to the people of the local area is being told, that is important in its own right.
So let's not only tell the stories or think that getting this policy right is about the stories that become the 'Crocodile Dundees' of the world. They're great, but to get these settings right the key question is: 'Do Australians get to see and hear Australian stories on the small screen and the big screen?' So our industry requires a level of government support in order to flourish and continue producing Australian content. It's the kind of equation you see in many areas of government policy—there is a public good at stake. That public good is the production of Australian film and TV shows. Therefore, if the market won't provide that outcome on its own, your government policy settings step in to help. When you're dealing with something that is a commodity, you'll have lots of times where, quite rationally, you'll say, 'Well, the market will sort out where our competitive advantage is.' But, because we are a small population and predominantly an English-speaking one, in global terms the cost per minute, for the size of the audience, of being able to produce high-quality screen content is just a different equation in Australia to what it is in the UK or the United States.
One part of this framework is Australian content quotas for television. For many years commercial TV networks were required to produce a certain amount of Australian children's content, documentary and drama content per year. The other part is tax offsets for film and TV production and post-production services—all of which, when you get it right, make it easier for Australian-made shows and films to get off the ground. For many years there's been common ground on these issues—common ground in terms of policy on both sides of politics. No-one should want our kids growing up without hearing Australian stories, and the many accents which make up this nation, on the TV screen. We want to see our own heroes at the local cinnamon—at the local cinema. 'Cinnamon' is actually the rescue greyhound at my home! I've been carrying her up the stairs twice a day. So there is a story behind that, if there were ever a slip that was Freudian—'cinnamon', that's the one. But the government has walked away from that consensus, which had been around for so long.
Of all the times to walk away from that consensus, to do it in the middle of a pandemic I find extraordinary, just extraordinary. At a time when the TV networks, quite rightly, are saying they're doing it tough because the advertising dollars are down, instead of the government saying, 'Well, we'll help you on a pathway through there'—and you would have thought maybe it would have been a time to run a decent advertising campaign on COVID; that might have been one of the ways they could have helped the commercial networks—no, there was none of that. They say, 'We'll help reduce your costs by reducing Australian content obligations.' Now, to do that at any time was against the national interest. To do that at this time was just a horrific act from someone who might be called 'minister for the arts', but it's no surprise there's no department bearing that title.
Last year, the minister used the cover of COVID to suspend these subquotas for the different television genres for a year. He swore black-and-blue that this would just be a temporary measure, but those who feared there was more going on than that were, sadly, proved right. In January this year, the government used a non-disallowable instrument—an instrument that the parliament didn't have the power to prevent—to completely change the local content quota system, effectively removing a requirement for certain types of content, such as Australian children's television, to be made at all. Six months on, children's TV production companies tell us that their commissions have completely collapsed. It's an entirely predictable outcome. The minister was told that this would be the outcome. The fact that it was predictable didn't stop him from doing it, and so it has gone from predictable to a decision now where those responsible for it are culpable.
The government's next step in their campaign was to try to halve Foxtel's local content quota from 10 per cent to five per cent. Foxtel have been a good citizen in producing high-quality Australian content. They're also a commercial operator, and if you reduce their obligation, understandably, they will reduce that because, as I said before, Australian content per minute of the same level of quality is more expensive. It will be: small population. That's going to happen. But on this occasion, government senators stepped in and said no. I'm glad the minister was humiliated; I wish part of that humiliation saw a change in behaviour. The government senators said no, brought down a report backing Labor's position and the government backed down. It should not have come to that.
This bill now is stage 3 of an attack on the local screen industry. First quotas, then Foxtel and now tax. Their original plan, I will readily concede, was worse than the bill that's in front of us now. The original plan was going to take the screen offset for producers—the producer offset for a feature film—from 40 per cent back to 30 per cent, effectively adding a bit more than 10 per cent to the cost of every Australian film. It would have meant that films like The Dressmaker and The Dry wouldn't have been made. If you doubt that, ask the people who were involved in those productions. It took a coalition of film producers and stars coming together. They travelled to Canberra and a whole lot of people got selfies and photos—apparently that seems to be one the ways of getting a change in this government. It also took a groundswell of support from everyday Australians, who enjoyed that summer of Australian film with Higher Ground, Penguin Bloom and The Dry. Imagine last summer without them; imagine what last summer would have been like without those Australian films.
So they dropped the cut in the producer offset for screen from 40 to 30 per cent—that's a good thing. But, unfortunately, there are many other parts of the bill that are still damaging to the industry. There is an improvement, and I don't want to skate over that. There is an improvement in the producer offset for television. This is an important thing to do; not by cutting other areas but an important thing to do in its own right. Why? Because any of us who have been watching TV for more than 15 years—and I've been watching it for a lot more than that!—have seen the change in the quality of production and, clearly, the amount of money that goes into each minute of television drama these days. It is much closer to the costs of feature film than it was with the programs that I remember growing up with just as we made the transition from black-and-white to colour. But I want to go through the other cuts that are in the bill.
The threshold for qualifying expenditure to access the producer offsets for film has been doubled, from half a million to a million dollars. This is for producer offsets for film. This means that the only productions that can access the producer offset are the larger premium productions that are worth more than a million dollars. Which are the productions that we know will be hit? What are the standard productions on screen that cost more than $500,000 but less than $1 million? The answer is simple: documentaries. The documentary sector gets hit really hard by this change in the threshold. There have been fantastic examples of smaller Australian documentaries recently. In My Blood It Runs is one example. They're true Australian stories told in the first person, told even more directly than drama is. This bill, this change in the offset, does mean a direct hit for Australian documentaries.
The threshold also for qualifying expenditure to access post-production—how many times have we heard about the great post-production sector for Australia? Digital, digital effects—we've got some of the best animation companies in the world. That's also doubled from $500,000 to a million dollars. So a whole lot of Australians might not realise just how successful our post-production industry is, but it creates so many jobs. When we welcome those productions that come here from overseas, it's not only the actors and the people working on set; there's a whole lot of post-production work that comes here. But now a lot of those companies won't be able to access the tax offset, because a lot of that work is piecemeal; a lot of that work is for jobs of less than a million dollars.
In the growing, important industry of post-production, Australia is a heavy-hitter on the world stage. A lot of people might not have heard of Animal Logic, but you've certainly watched their productions: Captain Marvel, Peter Rabbitand The Lego Movie are a few examples. They're considered one of the best outfits in the world. They're just one of many companies located here. The Australian Post & VFX Alliance estimates 400 jobs are at stake if this change goes ahead. These are all commercial businesses operating in a commercial environment where changing the rules under their feet will see jobs lost. I say to the government: don't do this.
The other change is to what's known as the 'Gallipoli' clause. We've all seen lots of Australian movies that are truly Australian stories, but part of the story, logically, goes to other countries for part of the filming. Gallipoli is one of the more obvious examples; that's why it's called the Gallipoli clause. Anyone who saw Lion saw the same thing, where you've got a whole lot of sections of an Australian movie that is truly an Australian story, but, quite logically, to tell it, some of it is done overseas. This clause covers Australian films which need to do some shooting on location overseas so they won't be disadvantaged. This clause will be removed. Imagine the film Lion if parts of it couldn't have been filmed in India. Imagine Gallipoli without having been able to go overseas for that. It just doesn't make sense. Unless they want to argue Gallipoli is not an Australian story—have a go at arguing that. If they want to argue that immigration stories where you do something on the country of people's heritage are not Australian stories, have a go at arguing that. If you don't believe it, don't do it. Let the Gallipoli clause survive. Other, more minor measures in the schedule include removal of certain types of expenditure that can be claimed against the offset, like overheads, copyright and other measures designed to limit the coverage of other offsets.
I want to conclude, because I think it's better if I do this all in one hit as we approach 90-second statements rather than have a 2½-minute speech later. The whole arts sector has been smashed by this pandemic, and there is an overlay between people who work in screen and people who work in other sectors. There is part of this bill that is really good; there are other things that need to be amended. And no-one yet from the other side has raised the argument as to the Gallipoli clause, as to why there aren't Australian stories that you need to film overseas, as to why the post-production sector is something that is expendable, as to why in Australia we're not in a situation where smaller documentary stories need to be told. If no-one's willing to make that case, then can I simply say: don't do it. Make the change for TV, improve the offset there, but don't wreck the businesses that tell our stories and don't wreck the experience of an Australian audience that wants to know that not every story is told with an American accent, that wants to know that our stories deserve to be on the small screen and on the large screen.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Perrett: I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Coulton ): It being 1.30, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Climate Change
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (13:29): [by video link] The IPCC report released overnight leaves no room for any doubt. We are in a race to save the planet. If nothing changes, global warming could hit 1½ degrees by 2030. This is real, and it's a race. Yet the Morrison government will not even commit to net zero emissions by 2050. For the better part of a decade this Liberal government has been wandering slowly across the track, watching the race instead of trying to win it. As IPCC report co-author and climate scientist at the University of Melbourne Malte Meinshausen has said:
… everybody in the international community would laugh if they would hear that Australia thinks they're doing enough. Of course they're not doing enough.
Except it's not just the international community, and we're not laughing, we're crying. When did the Liberal Party decide it was okay for Australia to finish last, whether it be on vaccinations or on emissions? When did the Morrison Liberals decide that incentives don't matter, that institutions don't matter, that the views of the business community and global investors and scientists and everyday Australians just don't matter? The Prime Minister can engage in all the spin, all the defiant twisting of data, all the bullish pretence that he is leading a government that is acting as he wants, but my community can see right through it. They know that the challenges and the renewable energy opportunities of the race to save our planet are real and they know I'll always be right there with them, pushing our country to start running again. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr ZIMMERMAN (North Sydney) (13:31): [by video link] The COVID pandemic has thrust Australians into the most difficult of circumstances in living memory. It is in these times that the very best of human nature is so often on display. This is perhaps best epitomised by the monumental effort being undertaken by our local GPs and pharmacies. It has been inspiring to see the dedicated work of our GPs, who have been vital in administering the vaccine to the public. The selflessness of all the staff and doctors in our GP clinics throughout this pandemic has been just so important. Local pharmacies have also come online to support the vaccine rollout. In my electorate dozens of chemists are now offering the vaccine and more will join the program in coming weeks. This has significantly boosted the availability of AstraZeneca. I am so grateful to the many GPs and pharmacies across my electorate that have supported the vaccine rollout to keep our community safe from this insidious virus. To all North Shore residents, thank you for the vital role you are playing. I know this task has taken its toll at times, but we are so grateful to each and every one of you for all you have done for our community. Finally, I want to thank residents in my electorate who have embraced the importance of the vaccine program. Data released this week shows that the northern Sydney region has the highest vaccination rate in the country at 58 per cent for first doses and 32 for full vaccination. Vaccinations do work. They are saving lives and they're helping to keep us safe. I want to urge all residents not yet getting the jab to make their appointment to help protect them, their families and our community.
Cabaero, Ms Lina
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (13:33): Today I rise to speak about the great loss of one of the outstanding constituents of the electorate of Barton. Lina Cabaero, a friend and colleague to many in this place, unfortunately lost her battle to pancreatic cancer on Saturday night. Lina had worked for the Asian Women at Work organisation here in Sydney since 2001. The organisation shone a light on the rights and vulnerabilities of migrant women. Lina worked closely with the union movement and was a member of the Australian Services Union for over 20 years.
I got to know Lina when I was the state member for Canterbury and closely worked with her and Asian Women at Work, a relationship that my office and I continued when I came to this place. Lina's activism started when she was a student at the University of the Philippines, initially studying to become a veterinarian. That all changed the day she and her friends joined a protest against Marcos. She would return to university to study political science, although her activism was her great priority. We pay attribute to Lina for the hundreds and hundreds of women that she helped in her lifetime.
Nanbarry
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:34): [by video link] There are many Indigenous names from history that we know well. Bennelong, Pemulwuy and Barangaroo come to mind, but there are many, many other people who should feature more in our national narrative, and one of those people is Nanbarry. Nanbarry was brought to the settlement at Sydney Cove as child suffering from smallpox, the epidemic of which was ravaging the new colony and had recently taken his parents. Considered an orphan by the authorities, he was not allowed to return to his people once cured and was kept by the surgeon. He was given the name Andrew White, a name he never accepted or recognised.
Like Bennelong, his friend and mentor, and Colebee, his uncle, he lived a life between two worlds: an ancient Indigenous world and a shocking new European one. He joined Flinders for the first half of his circumnavigation, and he joined Bennelong's Kissing Point tribe by James Squire's brewery, now a back street in Meadowbank. After Bennelong's death in 1813, Nanbarry requested that, as a sign of respect, he be buried alongside his mentor at his grave by the river in the electorate of Bennelong. James Squire did this when Nanbarry died 200 years ago this Thursday.
Nanbarry's voice is quiet today, but it was a unique voice—a voice facing challenges of intersecting communities in ways that make any multiculturalism debate today look very simplistic. We need— (Time expired)
Child Care
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:36): [by video link] Early learning services and educators in New South Wales are doing it particularly tough during this lockdown. They are still open and serving families in the community who are doing essential work, and I want to thank early educators, centre directors and all the support staff for performing this essential work.
It is clear that early education and care have been left behind by this Morrison government. While the government belatedly moved to ensure it was legal for centres to waive out-of-pocket costs for children who were not attending, services have now been left with a difficult choice because there's no corresponding support package in place from the Morrison government. The choice is to waive fees and give families in lockdown a break but incur a significant reduction in revenue and potentially be forced to stand down educators or to keep charging full fees to maintain their income and viability, with the chance that families will just unenrol, which will also threaten their viability. This is a no-win situation.
The government's response has been that services can access business support payments. But in reality many of them are just not eligible, because the significant drop in their enrolment and revenue has been a growing problem as the lockdown has dragged on and more families have exited the system. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition and I hosted a crisis meeting with services in Sydney that are crying out for help. The Morrison government must act now. (Time expired)
Sargon Capital
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (13:38): I seek leave to table documents in the House related to allegations of a Chinese state-linked entity deliberately seeking to liquidate Australian companies.
Leave granted.
Mr TIM WILSON: I table the documents. If an Australian company were maliciously liquidated at the direction of a Chinese state-linked entity, this House would rightly be outraged, and it should be. That why I bring to the attention of the House the liquidation of Sargon at the request of Taiping Trustees as the financing arm of Chinese state-linked enterprise China Taiping. The documents that have come into my possession appear to indicate that there has been a deliberate campaign to trigger the receivership of Sargon by China Taiping. The documents allude to the fact that, using a PR firm, stories were deliberately seeded to raise doubts about the sustainability of an Australian company, to the advancement of the Chinese linked interests. The allegations are that the interest payments on finance were deliberately redirected to present a failure to service debt. Consequently, contractual terms would be triggered, allowing for the appointment of an administrator, who would appoint a liquidator for Sargon. By triggering such terms, ASIC did not scrutinise the claims of creditors. The allegation is that, in doing so, it allowed China Taiping to take control of Sargon and its interests, physical and intellectual.
Like many members, in tabling the documents, I say that the documents presented form only part of a complex picture, but there is a public benefit in the allegations being investigated and made out. The documents include financial statements and other important matters. These are serious allegations. In the interests of Australian companies that might secure finance from Chinese state-linked entities, the documents are tabled to ensure scrutiny and, should the claims be made out, a warning. (Time expired)
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Win the Day
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (13:39): I rise to acknowledge and thank the Queanbeyan Whites rugby union club for their inspiring Win the Day charity round on Saturday. They traded in their white jerseys for black ones boasting a rainbow sash, representing the Win the Day charity, a charity started by well-known Queanbeyan athlete Kristy Giteau after one of her daughters was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. She has not only been the driving force of the charity but has made it her mission to make it easier for other parents going through the same situation that she and her husband found themselves in, separated from family for long periods of time, away from children and suffering financially. Win the Day was born out of experience and out of a need to do more. She said: 'When undergoing treatment, the moments can be hard, and there can be several bad moments in a day. Hence there had to be a reason or a drive to win the day.' The message resonated with so many people in the community. The Queanbeyan Whites raised close to $50,000 on Saturday, through jumper auctions, merchandise sales and money just donated by members of our community. This is what small communities do. They support each other. They get behind each other. The Queanbeyan Whites have a long affinity with the Giteau family. I want to thank all of the members of the Queanbeyan Whites rugby union club for being involved in Saturday's Win the Day round. Congratulations to you all. People can get more merchandise off the Win the Day website.
Tokyo Olympic Games
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:41): I congratulate all the Olympic athletes for their outstanding efforts at the Tokyo games, especially those from my electorate of Menzies: swimmer Brendon Smith and sports climber Oceana Mackenzie. Oceana began climbing at the age of eight and is currently the Australian national champion across all three climbing disciplines. This was the first time that sports climbing was included in the Olympics, and she did an outstanding job. Given she's only 19 years of age, I'm sure this is the beginning of a very successful international career. Congratulations also to 21-year-old swimmer Brendon Smith for his bronze medal in the 400 metres individual medley. He qualified with a stellar performance here in Australia, and at his debut appearance in Japan bettered the Australian record and broke the Commonwealth record in the heats, taking home the bronze medal in the final, which also marked Australia's first medal at the Olympic Games. It was the first Australian medal in that event since Rob Woodhouse's bronze at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. Because of COVID, training was difficult, and Brendon had to train in his own backyard swimming pool for much of the time, tied to a rope which was tied to the cubby house and just stroking away. The family put hot water from the kitchen in the backyard pool to try and help the situation, not that it helped a lot. Maybe if it had been a bit warmer he might have got the gold! But congratulations to him, to Oceana and to all Australian athletes at the Tokyo Olympics.
Indi Electorate: Grit and Resilience Project
Dr HAINES (Indi) (13:42): The last two years have seen so many challenges—fires, drought floods, pandemic—and we've seen some incredible grit in the face of it all. But mental health needs are huge and growing. The business community is in constant uncertainty. Young people are missing school, their friends and regular activities. People of all ages and backgrounds are struggling without their usual supports. The resilience of people from all walks of life is being sorely tested. So today I share a local response story—the aptly named Grit and Resilience project, from my electorate of Indi. They've delivered, in partnership with multiple organisations, and the project aims to help locals unite and build strength, courage and connection with each other so that everyone can overcome hardships together. Two hundred local people have been trained and engaged as community volunteers to meet with people wherever they're at—small towns, local cafes, sporting clubs. They've been trained in things like mental health first aid and they've developed practical, community driven activities such as helping young girls stay connected with sporting activities through providing gym memberships to keep them active. The project is featured as a case study in the final report of the Royal Commission into Victoria's Mental Health System, which recommended this model as a positive community approach to mental health. I want to commend all the volunteers; the program coordinator, Bek Nash-Webster; and community partners Caz Sammon, John Davis, Ruby Sait and Chelsea Wilson. I am so proud of everyone involved and grateful for your wonderful work.
Pooley, Mr Robert Charles (Bob)
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (13:44): Today I pay tribute to much-loved George Town local sports personality and one of the nicest blokes you could ever meet, Robert Charles Pooley, who passed away unexpectedly last month. He was a dedicated sports fan and coach, and he was highly regarded across Tasmania's cricket and soccer circles. Jack Hill from Bob's beloved George Town Cricket Club described him well: 'Bob Pooley will forever be synonymous with the George Town Cricket Club, having led the club for many years with his trademark optimism, drive, commitment and enthusiasm. Bob had a passion for helping others and was always generous with his time and wisdom. His love of cricket and his passion for people made him a valued and respected administrator.'
Bob was involved with the NTCA, where he sat on the board for a decade; was committed to the Northern Rangers Football Club; and worked tirelessly in the community across a range of interests. But above all Bob was a family man, and I send my love and condolences to his wonderful wife, Jenny; sons, Rohan and Marshall; and grandchildren, Toby, Harry, Olivia and Mason.
At Bob's funeral he was remembered with the Linda Ellis poem The Dash, which speaks of the dash between our date of birth and that of our death, saying what matters is how we live and love and how we spend our dash. Bob packed so much into the dash between those years. He lived and loved well and will be deeply missed. Vale, Bob Pooley.
Morrison Government
Ms RYAN (Lalor—Opposition Whip) (13:45): The Morrison Liberal federal government are not on the side of ordinary Australians. We've had evidence of that again today, with debt notices given to ordinary Australians while there's been a refusal to peruse big business for billions of dollars in the same program. They're not on your side, and we know it—otherwise, they'd have fixed the quarantine issues in this country and we'd have purpose-built quarantine. If they were on the ordinary side of Australians, they'd have ensured supply of vaccine. It's 18 months and more into this pandemic. We wouldn't be in a lockdown in my community if the government were on our side. If they were on our side, they'd have a plan for the climate crisis, they'd have a plan for renewables, and they could answer the critical question: what is the cost of no action? But they're not on our side.
My community is in lockdown currently. I have many, many families in isolation, doing 14 days quarantine and following the rules. My community are really fortunate because they have a state government that is on their side. They have a state government that's ensuring that they can get tested locally. They have a state government that's ensuring that locals in my community are getting vaccinated. They are working overtime to support the people in my community. They have a state government that's ensuring that there's financial support to support those families to ensure that they can get tested and that they can live in quarantine.
Australians have the best BS radars in the world, and they are onto this Prime Minister. They know that he doesn't want to take responsibility and he doesn't mean what he says.
Tokyo Olympic Games
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (13:47): I have never been so proud of our country and its people as I have over the past two weeks. At a time when our nation needed a lift, our Olympians have truly delivered, with a record medal haul and a host of passionate performances in just about every sport.
In the electorate of Fisher we had plenty to cheer for. On the rugby pitch, Dominique Du Toit made us all proud, while in the pool Kaylee McKeown ensured that, were Fisher a country, we would have come above other proud nations like Turkey, Israel and Greece in the medal table. I said earlier in this place that we were looking forward to seeing Kaylee give her best, but none of us could have expected her incredible triple gold and single bronze. Many congratulations. Well done to her and the fantastic team of coaches, including Chris Mooney of USC Spartans, who did such tremendous work getting our swimmers ready to give their best.
Thank you also to the Australian Olympic Committee and the Tokyo 2020 organising committee for keeping the dream alive. Thank you most of all to our Olympians for their inspirational sportsmanship, hard work and dedication. Now our attention turns to a terrific Paralympics to come in just two short weeks, beginning with Fisher's talented swimmers: Liam Schluter, Katja Dedekind, Ruby Storm, Keira Stephens and Benjamin Hance. Good luck to you all.
Veterans: Census
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (13:49): This government is on its sixth veterans affairs minister in eight years. The new minister presides over a department that is dysfunctional and has delays in terms of processing claims, and we know that there are backlogs with respect to waiting times as well as compensation. But tonight veterans can give the new minister a hand.
The government struggled to identify how many veterans live in Australia and where they live. So I'm asking veterans to answer a question tonight. Tonight, for the first time in the census, there will be a question on Australian Defence Force service. Veterans can once again do their civic duty and give the government a helping hand by nudging it on the way to providing better support for veterans. This new 2021 census question will help to identify how many veterans there are and where they are and allow the right services to be delivered where they're needed, both nationally and locally.
Labor and the states and territories and ex-service organisations have long championed this. We are pleased that the government has put this question in the census. I encourage all defence personnel and veterans to answer the question 'Have you served in the ADF?' I ask you to answer that question tonight, and give the government a helping hand, so we can get better support for veterans across the country as well as in each and every electorate. It's crucial we do this, and I ask veterans to do this tonight to benefit our nation.
Forde Electorate: Cedar Creek State School
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (13:50): I recently had the pleasure of visiting Cedar Creek State School, a small but proud school with a strong community spirit in my electorate of Forde. It was my honour to present them with a cheque for $2,572 for a stronger communities grant that they were successful in achieving. The grant will be used for new sporting equipment for the school's early years program.
Cedar Creek State School understand that what happens in the years prior to commencing school is critical to setting up children to have a positive start. That's why they've developed the early years program to support and engage children in early learning experiences while building community connections and spirit. Under the early years program they developed their playgroup Little Sprouts at the Creek, for children aged zero to five years, and their transition-to-prep program Steps to Prep at the Creek, offered in the year prior to commencing school. It is a core belief of the early years program that the children are capable, competent and active learners with the ability to make positive contributions to their school and the wider community.
Congratulations to the teachers of the early years program for the work that you are doing to ensure the students have playful experiences as well as interactions that promote active learning and engage children's natural curiosity. I congratulate Cedar Creek State School on their receipt of this grant and encourage them to keep up the amazing work they're doing.
Macarthur Electorate: COVID-19
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (13:52): I want to take some time today to thank our critical frontline workers, in particular our healthcare workers and our police. We are under stress in my electorate of Macarthur because of the recent outbreak of COVID-19. There have been over 260 active cases in the last four weeks, and without our critical frontline workers we would not be able to cope. I thank Amanda Larkin, the area general manager of our health services, and Dr Sellappa Prahalath, our hospital general manager, for making sure that we have the resources to cope with this outbreak of the pandemic. I'd like to thank also the area director of the Macarthur police, Julian Griffiths, for the work that he's doing with his force, who are making sure, with their softly, softly approach, that our residents feel comfortable with the restrictions and are able to deal with them.
I thank all our doctors, nurses, pathology workers, cleaners, GPs and pharmacists. They're helping us deal with this very difficult pandemic. Words pale in comparison to the significance of the contributions that our healthcare workers and our police are making to keep us all safe. If you want to protect those who are protecting us or you want to thank those who are working to keep us safe, please get immunised. Please do the right thing. Please get tested if you have symptoms. Please make sure that you care for those who are struggling, and please make sure that you comply with the rules that are put in place to protect our society and to protect Macarthur.
Gippsland Electorate: Krauatungalung Walk
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (13:53): For several years now, I've been pursuing a vision in partnership with the Lakes Entrance community to establish a boardwalk on the shores of Cunninghame Arm which will celebrate our region's Indigenous heritage. Thanks to our government, this project, which will deliver significant cultural, economic, social and environmental benefits to the community, is a step closer. We have provided $2.2 million for the Krauatungalung Walk. It's a 4.5-kilometre circuit which will link existing infrastructure and create new boardwalks and pathways to take users along a safe, flat and, most importantly, all-abilities-accessible circuit across some of the Gippsland lakes most attractive coastal scenery. The concept design for the project has received overwhelmingly positive feedback, and I thank my staff member Katie Zagami for her work in partnership with the stakeholder groups to get the project this far. The Lakes Entrance Action and Development Association has backed the proposal for very good reasons. The health and economic benefits of an all-abilities-accessible circuit are very obvious to the community, and the project will be a practical example of reconciliation.
The Krauatungalung Walk will use local artists to tell the story of the traditional owners, and in this special place we will respect Indigenous culture in a way that hasn't been done before in such a high-profile location in East Gippsland. This will be a fantastic local project, and one that I'm proud to have played my role in in helping to deliver for the community of Gippsland.
JobKeeper Payment
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (13:55): Jan is a schoolteacher who works part-time, and her school received JobKeeper. As a result, according to Centrelink, she was overpaid $1,049.85 on her age pension. This is the letter that Centrelink sent to her, demanding the repayment of that amount. She's among 11,000 Australians who have been asked to make repayments as a result of receiving JobKeeper. Meanwhile, nearly a dozen billionaires own shares in firms that got JobKeeper and paid dividends. This is the blank letter that the government sent to Solomon Lew of Premier Investments, which got over $100 million. This is the blank letter that they sent to Gerry Harvey of Harvey Norman, which got $22 million. This is the blank letter they sent to John Gandel, whose company, Vicinity Centres, got $11 million. This is the blank letter they sent to Marc Besen, whose HomeConsortium got $200,000. This is the blank letter they sent to Brett Blundy, currently on his yacht in Monaco, whose Best and Less got $43 million. This is the blank letter that they sent to James Packer, of Crown, which got $110 million. This is the blank letter they sent to Nick Politis, whose company, AP Eagers, got $130 million. And this is the blank letter they sent to Len Ainsworth, whose company, Aristocrat, got $11 million.
Jan is on a payment plan over the next six months, and she is appalled that the government is chasing one of the little people struggling on the bottom of the rung. None of those billionaires would need six months to pay JobKeeper back.
COVID-19
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:56): When will the madness end? How many more freedoms will we lose due to fear of a virus which has a survivability rate of 997 out of a thousand? It's time we stopped spreading fear and acknowledged some facts. Masks do not work—fact. It has been proven that masks make no significant difference in stopping the spread of COVID-19. Lockdowns don't work—fact. Lockdowns don't destroy the virus, but they do destroy people's livelihoods and people's lives. Studies have shown that they can even increase mortality rates. Domestic vaccine passports are a form of discrimination—fact. We are all human beings; nobody should be restricted from everyday life because of their medical choices, especially when vaccinated people can still catch and spread COVID-19.
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Our posturing politicians—many over there—the sensationalist media elite and the dictatorial medical bureaucrats need to recognise these facts and stop spreading fear. COVID-19 is going to be with us forever, just like the flu. And, just like the flu, we will have to live with it, not in constant fear of it. Some people will catch it. Tragically, some people will die from it. That's inevitable, and we have to accept it. What we should never accept is the systematic removal of our freedoms based on zero-risk health advice from a bunch of unelected medical bureaucrats. Open society back up! Restore our freedoms! End this madness!
COVID-19
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:58): South-East Queensland has just come out of its fifth lockdown. We know such lockdowns are necessary, but there's a financial and human cost with each one. Local businesses suffer, casual staff lose wages and the education of our children is disrupted. And, with each lockdown, people are getting more and more frustrated.
And so they should be. Prime Minister Morrison has been paid well to do two jobs during this pandemic: to provide a safe national quarantine system and a speedy and effective vaccine rollout. He has failed on both counts. He promised we would be at the front of the global vaccine queue. He promised that four million Australians would be vaccinated by March. He promised that all Australians would have the opportunity to be vaccinated by October this year. He promised all Australians who wanted to come home that they would be home by last Christmas. Instead, Aussies have been prevented from coming home because we're still relying on tourist hotels to quarantine travellers. Hotels were never meant to be used for quarantine purposes—they leak.
Today, three states are in lockdown. About 13 million Australians are in lockdown and the New South Wales lockdown alone is costing about a billion dollars a week. Eighteen months into this pandemic there are still more than 35,000 Australians stranded overseas, waiting to come home—many in dire straits. We're still waiting for fit-for-purpose quarantine facilities to be built, people want to be vaccinated but there just aren't enough vaccines available and lockdowns are our confronting reality.
Prime Minister, you had two jobs. You have failed to do both and it's time you went.
The SPEAKER: The member for Stirling has about 20 seconds.
Stirling Electorate: Surfing WA
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (13:59): Like so many Aussies, I'm a massive fan of our oceans. My family and I are always surfing, swimming and spearfishing every chance we get. It's a wonderful outcome that the election commitment I made, for $4 million from this Morrison government for a new headquarters, a new home, for Surfing WA, is now going ahead. The sod was turned last week.
The SPEAKER: That's a very succinct speech.
CONDOLENCES
Beale, Mr Julian Howard
The SPEAKER (14:00): I inform the House of the death on 3 August 2021 of Julian Howard Beale, a member of this House for the division of Deakin from 1984 until 1990 and Bruce from 1990 to 1996. As a mark of respect to the memory of Julian Beale, I invite all present to rise in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Climate Change
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:00): A brief indulgence on behalf of this side of the House: I dissociate this side of the House with the comments of the member for Dawson during 90-second statements. They are a disgrace and do discredit to the four people who lost their lives in the last 24 hours.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.
Mr ALBANESE: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Before the horror 2019-20 bushfires, the Prime Minister ignored warnings from former fire chiefs that Australia was unprepared for the dangers. Now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned:
The intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather events are projected to increase throughout Australia …
Will the Prime Minister ignore this warning, too?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:01): Australia has not ignored any of those warnings. Our government has been acting on those warnings each and every day. That is why emissions reductions have been 20 per cent on 2005 levels. It is why we've installed seven gigawatts of renewable energy capacity in 2020. This is around eight times faster than New Zealand, Japan, Italy and the global average per person. It's three times faster than Germany and the EU. It is why we have the highest rate of solar uptake on roofs in the world. It is why we have met and beaten our Kyoto target, and we will meet and beat our Paris target. It is why we remain a steadfast, committed government to the Paris Agreement. It is why we have invested $20 billion in ensuring the technology that not just Australia needs but developing countries not just in our region like Indonesia, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea and other countries are seeking to ensure that they can develop their economies, but doing so in a way that deals with a world net zero economy of the future.
We know that every household, farms and businesses small and large are making the changes, whether it be in the mining industry, in the agricultural sector, in manufacturing—wherever it will be, they are being supported in the decisions that they are taking because of the very serious issues that have once again been confirmed by the IPCC report.
So we will continue to take action. We must continue to take action. And performance matters, and performance counts. Australia is the only country, to the best of our knowledge, that reports quarterly on its emissions reductions—every sector, every gas, every quarter. I wish other countries did the same, but that's what Australia does, because Australia knows that the way we achieve this is by equipping our industries, equipping our farmers and equipping Australians who are passionately committed to addressing this urgent action—urgent action that our government is supporting them to take through the policies that we've put in place.
We set out our plans. We are very careful to explain to Australians what the costs involved are and how we will manage those risks. There won't be the handing over of blank cheques on this issue from our government. We will ensure that we can work with Australians, whether they be in regional areas, the suburbs of our great cities or wherever they happen to be. We will carry this burden together. But we'll ensure that that burden does not fall on some Australians, like in regional Australia, and they are carrying the burden for the rest of us. We will ensure that our plan addresses their needs and takes all of Australia with us in addressing this very serious global challenge.
Mr Dreyfus: What a fraud!
The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will withdraw that.
Mr Dreyfus: I withdraw.
COVID-19
Ms HAMMOND (Curtin) (14:05): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister please update the House on the progress of the Morrison government's plan to chart Australia's path back from the COVID-19 pandemic and how this plan will ensure that we can live with the virus and emerge stronger on the other side?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:05): I thank the member for Curtin for her question. The news in New South Wales today, for all of us who are from New South Wales—but not just New South Wales; I'm sure for the member for Curtin as well—is heavy news: 356 cases today. There are 297 in hospital. There are 60 in ICU in New South Wales, including 28 on ventilators. There have been 30 deaths this year in New South Wales, and that includes three in the past 24 hours.
The national plan that we have championed sets our pathway out of this, and every Australian has a role to play in every single phase of that plan. Right now we are in that suppression phase—that suppression phase that seeks to minimise as best as we possibly can this delta strain which has completely changed the response that is needed to address COVID. Delta has changed everything; Australians understand that.
Ms Collins interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Franklin!
Mr MORRISON: So we are acting to support those—
The SPEAKER: The member for Franklin is warned!
Mr MORRISON: in New South Wales or elsewhere in this suppression phase, bringing forward the doses, hundreds of thousands, whether they be in New South Wales, Queensland or Victoria. Moderna has now, of course, had TGA approval, and that was announced by the health minister and Professor Skerritt, and those first doses will come in September. There are the mental health supports that we are providing not just in New South Wales but also in Victoria—over $17 million of urgent mental health support in New South Wales, done with the New South Wales government, with over $12½ million directly from the federal government, similar to what we did in Victoria during their long lockdown last year. COVID-19 Assist has 581 ADF deployed in New South Wales right now. The economic supports continue to flow through the COVID disaster assistance payment, and I commend those at Services Australia and also those working in Service NSW who are delivering the business payments which we are sharing the cost of.
So, for those who are affected by those lockdowns, particularly in New South Wales, the challenge is to stay at home and to get vaccinated—234,899 doses yesterday; 1.36 million doses in seven days. That is the mark of a program that has been turned around, the mark of a program that has had its challenges for all the reasons we have gone into but that the government has addressed and has turned around and is ensuring that those dosage rates are hitting the levels that are necessary to get this job done. That's 14 million doses we are now closing in on this week. Forty-five per cent of the population had their first dose.
We need to enter phase B strong and we need to not squander the great gains that have been made by Australians as we go into phase B. We must not give up in the fight against delta. This government will never do that. And we will continue to support Australians as we take them through and out of this crisis.
Climate Change
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (14:08): [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. In response to last night's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the Prime Minister claimed today:
We need more technology and no-one will be matching our ambition for a technology-driven solution.
If that's true, why did the Prime Minister claim that electric vehicles would 'end the weekend'?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:08): I'll ask the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction to add to my answer, but the claim made by the questioner is false, and I will ask the minister—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left! I'm just going to say, before I call the Manager of Opposition Business, I find it very difficult to see how this could be a point of order on relevance. If the Manager of Opposition Business and, clearly, members behind him are taking issue with what the Prime Minister said, there's no standing order that covers that. But I'll hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I was wanting to be helpful, to give the Prime Minister the quote where he said it would 'end the weekend'.
The SPEAKER: You can seek to table something later on, if you wish to.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:09): I thank the member for McMahon for his question. The report that we saw come out last night underscores the importance of our work in Australia to reduce emissions in Australia and to support the reduction of emissions right around the world. This will be achieved through practical solutions that allow Australia and other countries throughout the world to reduce their emissions whilst maintaining strong economies, investment and growth. The secret to that is technology, not taxes, because technology allows us to break the trade-off between economy and environment. We can have both a healthy environment and a healthy economy through the deployment of, development of and investment in technology.
Our approach is working. We beat our Kyoto 2020 targets by 459 million tonnes—almost a year's worth of emissions. Central to that is the hard work of our farmers. Central to that is one in four Australians with solar panels on their roofs. Central to that is manufacturing energy efficiencies and changes in the way we're manufacturing products in this country to bring down our energy costs and bring down emissions at the same time.
We are on track to meet and beat our 2030 targets. Indeed, in the last two years alone we've improved our performance versus our 2030 targets by the equivalent of taking every car in Australia off the road for 15 years. That's 14.5 million tonnes. We didn't have to take cars off the road to do that. Indeed, our investments across low-energy technologies commitments come to $20 billion over the coming decade. That will be matched with private sector investment, totalling up $80 billion of investment. Included in that is $1.4 billion to help increase the uptake of low- and zero-emissions vehicle technologies, as part of our Future Fuels Strategy.
We believe in choice. Central to this are the decisions made by Australians to choose technologies that are the right technologies for them. We're getting on with the job. It's technology, not taxes.
The SPEAKER: Is the Manager of Opposition Business seeking to table a document?
Mr Burke: Yes. I seek to table the transcript of the Prime Minister's press conference on 7 April 2019 where he referred to—
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Leave not granted.
Economy
Mr YOUNG (Longman) (14:12): My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Morrison government's strong economic leadership ensuring our economy remains resilient during these challenging times so that Australia is well placed to bounce back again in the future? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:13): I thank the member for Longman for his question and acknowledge his experience with small business. He's not just a good guy; he's actually owned a Good Guys franchise, like many on this side of the House with a small-business background.
These are trying times for the Australian economy and, indeed, for the Australian community, with people across Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales in lockdown. This is having an impact on economic activity, this is having an impact on business and consumer confidence and this is having an impact on the number of hours worked. That is why we're responding with extensive economic support. Since July around $2 billion has been paid out through the COVID disaster payment to around one million people. We've seen business support go to Victoria, where we've combined for $800 million—two packages—to provide support to small businesses. Earlier this week we saw support, with the Marshall government, for South Australian businesses, with cash grants of around $3,000 for small businesses. And we've also partnered with New South Wales in a fifty-fifty split to ensure businesses receive economic support.
We know that the Australian economy has underlying strength and we know that it will bounce back from these challenges that it faces today. That's because it's done it before. But, even to look at the current challenges in context, we know that consumer confidence today is around 50 per cent higher than it was in March last year. We know from bank data that consumer spending today is around 30 per cent higher than it was in April last year. We also know that around 200,000 people have come off unemployment benefits since the end of JobKeeper.
I'm asked, 'Are there any alternative approaches?' Those opposite always seek to talk down the Australian economy. Those opposite are taking to the Australian people higher taxes. Those opposite are seeking to splash billions of dollars on people who have already had the jab. And those opposite are seeking to diminish the success of nation-saving programs like JobKeeper. Today there was a revelation. Today there was breaking news; it's been revealed that $22 million in JobKeeper payments went to Labor associated services—that is, trade unions. So I say to those opposite: when it comes to paying back JobKeeper, stop harassing the churches, stop harassing small business and start closer to home with trade unions.
Pensions and Benefits
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Morrison government advise Anne from Punchbowl, who is in lockdown, that she would lose her pension if she didn't provide specific proof-of-age documents, which she does not have—especially given Anne is 102, is bed-bound, has been a pensioner for 40 years, and, were it not for the intervention of my office, would have had to travel in an ambulance to Service NSW to keep her pension?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:17): Thanks for the opportunity to respond to the question. Clearly I'm not across the constituent's details, and nor would she understand why she would be required—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The minister will just pause for a second. The question has been asked. I'm trying to listen to the answer. Members giving a commentary will be ejected.
Mr ROBERT: I'm not across the constituent's details, but absolutely send it to my office or Minister Reynolds's office and we'll have a look at it for you. I'm not too sure why she would have been sent to Service NSW. If there should be updating of pension documentation, it would be done online or with Services Australia. But send the details through and we're more than happy to have a look at it. Everyone's circumstances are completely different and unique, and without looking at the facts of the case it's difficult to give a concise answer. Send the details through, and I'm more than happy to come back to you or the House.
Rural and Regional Australia: Climate Change
Dr HAINES ( Indi ) ( 14:18 ): My question is to the Prime Minister. Today you said, 'Regional communities should not be forced to carry the national burden when it comes to climate change.' Regional communities are already carrying this burden—drought, bushfires, floods and future trade costs. Our communities are suffering on top of this, with delayed vaccines, lockdowns, economic hardship. But the regions are smart and ready to seize new opportunities—opportunities like community owned renewable energy. You're standing in the way. Why won't you show the leadership that we need and commit to net zero emissions by 2050?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:18): We should achieve net zero as soon as possible, and preferably by 2050. That's what the government policy has been. But I can tell you this: I agree with the member that the impacts of climate change are impacted most greatly across our regions and the agricultural sectors, as we've seen right across the country for many years. But that does not mean that they should shoulder the economic burden of that, greater than other parts of the country. I'm sure the member would agree with me when it comes to those issues. I agree with the member that people in regional communities have shown the innovation—particularly our agricultural sector, but also our minerals sector.
In our mining sector, our global mining companies are leading the way when it comes to transforming their operations to net zero practices. Our farmers are doing it, our miners are doing it, households are doing it and they're all being enabled by the policies of the government to support them, because the way we address this is by ensuring the changes take place at that level, right across the country, and no part of the country should have to carry a greater burden. Our policy is designed to support, whether it's regions or other parts of our economy, the transformations that they're making because they can see that that is not only in the country's national environmental interest, in the planet's environmental interest, but it's also in their commercial interests and it's important for the future of their community, their businesses, their farms and their jobs.
The member would, I'm sure, agree that there are great anxieties about this issue in regional communities. We need to address those anxieties and assure people in regional parts of the country that the plan we have to achieve these outcomes is a plan that they can support, a plan that they can get behind. There are no blank cheques they're being asked to sign off on and they're not being asked to live up to a commitment where there's no plan. It's very important that we're straight with the Australian people about how we achieve these things and that they understand what is needed and how we achieve the technological advances that are necessary to make this a reality, not just here but all around the world and particularly in developing countries. That's what we're seeking to do.
I welcome the very practical initiatives that the member has been putting forward and raising with the government on micro grids. Indeed, micro grids are a policy of this government, as the member for Leichhardt is very aware. These are the practical solutions that take us through and allow regional communities to transition, to transform and to not be left behind as a result of an unfunded, under-planned commitment that others would seek to make at the great cost to other Australians.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (14:21): My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on how new vaccine approvals, the delivery of over 1.3 million vaccinations in the last week and over 200,000 vaccinations in the last 24 hours are helping to protect Australian lives and livelihoods?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:22): I want to thank the member for Higgins for her support for the vaccination program. Indeed we travelled to the Prahran Town Hall to see a Commonwealth vaccination clinic in operation. They will have contributed in the last 24 hours to the almost 240,000 vaccines that were administered, 34,000 up on this time last week, the highest first day of the week that we've had. It represents in one day the population of Ballarat and Bendigo combined.
In the last week, we've seen an increase since we talked yesterday of 1.363 million, as the Prime Minister said, approximately the population of Adelaide—subject to the census tonight, of course! But the fact that in one week we've been able to have the population of Adelaide vaccinated, in one day, the population of Ballarat and Bendigo combined indicates that Australians are coming forward to be vaccinated and are taking their responsibility on themselves to protect themselves, to protect others, and that that partnership with the Australian people is strong and delivering vaccinations for Australians. Indeed, we're at almost 14 million vaccinations right across the nation at this point in time. That includes over nine million first vaccinations and now 4¾ million second vaccinations. These things are saving lives and protecting lives. They're combining with all the other things that Australians have done to protect, through borders, testing, tracing, distancing and vaccination against the spread of COVID-19.
We've seen again over 600,000 cases worldwide, again, over 8,000 lives lost. It is a global pandemic, the likes of which we have not seen for a hundred years. So against that background, I'm pleased that only yesterday the Therapeutic Goods Administration has approved another vaccine for Australia, the Moderna vaccine. There are 10 million doses of the Moderna vaccine expected over the balance of this year and 15 million doses as potential boosters next year. That will complement the AstraZeneca vaccine and it will complement the Pfizer vaccine. All of these things will come together to ensure that each Australian, every Australian, has the opportunity to be vaccinated this year. When we do that, each person is making a statement and an action to support their own health and they're making a contribution to the rest of the nation. We thank them for that and we honour them for that. We urge all Australians to come forward, to be vaccinated, to protect their lives and to protect the lives of all Australians.
JobKeeper Payment
Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong) (14:25): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to reports that his government is trying to claw back $32 million from low-income individuals, including age pensioners, who received JobKeeper payments. Why is the government harassing and targeting ordinary Australians but refusing to demand a refund from big corporations who banked $13 billion in JobKeeper payments whilst their earnings and profits grew last year?
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (14:26): I thank the member for his question. As everyone in the House knows, governments of all persuasions have a responsibility to ensure that debts are recovered fairly, lawfully, transparently and respectfully. For example, as at August, $296.6 million in overpayments has been recovered by the ATO, of which $185 million in cash has been recovered. The ATO was fulfilling its responsibilities—in this case, almost a third of a billion dollars—in recovering.
The same issue and the same standard applies to Australians. When JobSeeker and JobKeeper were put into the Australian population, it was quite clear that Australians knew that you could not claim both. Indeed, the customer journey for every Australian when they went online or used a telephony service was that they had to read through and acknowledge that in the same format and standard as if you were acknowledging it in a statutory declaration. It is a requirement of the law that all Services Australia, government services or human services ministers have worked under for decades. And they had to actually state that they were not taking JobSeeker and JobKeeper. The government has a responsibility, as all governments have had over the decades, to do targeted compliance as required by the Australian National Audit Office. That compliance showed that a number of Australians had, unfortunately, claimed both of them. The law requires the government to respectfully go back to those Australians to point out to them that they have claimed both JobSeeker and JobKeeper.
Mr Shorten interjecting—
Mr ROBERT: The Leader of the Opposition says this is about a fair go. With great respect, Sir, it is actually about following the law—and the law requires that overpayments are not allowed. The laws being administered by the ATO—with $296 million worth of overpayments recovered—require that you can't receive both JobKeeper and JobSeeker. Every Australian who applied for it acknowledged that they couldn't receive both of those payments. Services Australia is now going forward transparently and respectfully to say, 'You've claimed both,' and is seeking to recover the debt lawfully, as required, which all governments have been required to do for decades and decades and decades. That's the standard of the highly targeted welfare system that all Australians enjoy and that many members of the Leader of the Opposition's frontbench have administered over the years.
Agriculture Industry
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:28): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia. Will the minister outline how the Morrison-Joyce government is working to improve the quality of Australian soils and ensure Australian farmers are rewarded for their stewardship of land and water?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (14:29): I thank the member for Flynn for his question and for his interest in our soil management, our landscape management, our stewardship, and how that's underpinning agricultural production here in Australia. It is a $66 billion industry and we are hoping to take that to $100 billion by 2030. As part of the Ag2030 plan, one of the key pillars is stewardship of the land. We are making real, tactile investments in that, through our National Soil Strategy, which is being run by the Hon. Penelope Wensley AC, and our Biodiversity Stewardship Program—with real money. In the budget we made sure that we made significant investments in that: in the Soil Strategy, nearly $215 million in real projects, $120 million of that in rewarding farmers, incentivising farmers to undertake soil tests to be able to understand their soil health and what needs to go into it to improve their productivity and to look after it and then sharing that data so that other farmers can learn. There's also $67 million for a practical solution to match households and their organic waste and turn that waste into compost to go into soils. We're working with local government so that households can be part of a solution to improve our soils and improve the productivity and profitability of our farms.
There's $20 million for education of our farmers in making sure that the data is shared. Underpinning that is $40 million through our Soil CRC. That collates and collects the data to make sure that we're able to target government measures in a practical way. That will also feed into the aim and ambition of this government to try to create a test for soil carbon that costs under $3 a hectare. That will change the landscape. That will change the management of our farms. We will have real measures towards not just carbon abatement but improving our productivity right across the country. These measures complement the biodiversity stewardship program. We are the first country in the world to be able to measure the improvement in biodiversity. No other country in the world has been able to crack the code, bar us. We should be so proud of the best and brightest minds in the world that have done this. What we will do with this is to make sure that we reward farmers not for locking up large tracks of land but for rejuvenating unproductive land, landscape that is damaged. They will be rewarded for that financially not just for carbon abatement but for biodiversity improvement. What we intend to do with that is to create a seal, a brand, that those farmers can place on their beef, on their sheep, on their wheat and on their pork that they can then send around the world for a premium. The world wants to know the provenance of their food and fibre. Australian farmers are the best at it, and we want them to be rewarded for it. This is the Australian way of solving problems, not senseless vandalism.
COVID-19: New South Wales
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:32): My question is to the Prime Minister. Tragically, COVID infections in New South Wales reached a new daily record today. The New South Wales Premier said today:
… vaccination reduces your chance of spreading, reduces your chance of landing in hospital and it reduces your chance of dying.
The New South Wales Premier has also said it is a race. Will the Prime Minister admit that, if he had not bungled the vaccine rollout, New South Wales would not be in the position it is today.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:32): I don't agree with the assertion put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The federal government has ensured that New South Wales has been supported to the tune of 386,000 additional doses of Pfizer. On top of that, over a million doses of AstraZeneca have been made available. I'm pleased by the strong response of the New South Wales government and the people of Sydney, as they've been coming forward and the vaccination rates in Sydney have been lifting, particularly over the last few weeks during the course of the lockdown and in particular in those nine local government areas that have been at the centre of the outbreak in New South Wales. We will continue to support the New South Wales government in supporting the effectiveness of the lockdown that is critical to suppressing this virus, the delta strain, which has completely changed everything when it comes to the COVID response and the plans and the initiatives that are necessary in this phase of our four-phase plan. It is absolutely vital that we seek to suppress the virus as much as we possibly can in this phase, so we can enter the next phase in the strong position that Australians have worked very hard to achieve. We do know that in other countries that have higher vaccination rates than Australia—whether Singapore, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands or other countries around the world, including China—they have had to go back into lockdowns as a result of the delta strain.
The Leader of the Opposition, in raising this question today and putting it in that way, may wish to pretend that the delta variant is a myth, or he may wish to pretend that it doesn't change the responses that are necessary. He may seek to undermine the efforts of the government, as we seek to support the New South Wales government in dealing with this outbreak. He's got one job, and that's to undermine the government, not support us in this effort.
We will continue to support the New South Wales government and the people of New South Wales in mental health support; getting the Australian Defence Force on the ground; additional vaccines, and targeting vaccines into those areas particularly most affected, ensuring those regional communities who had vaccines taken away from them—20,000 vaccines back in the Central Coast, back into the Hunter, back in Armidale and Tamworth, which are also in lockdown now. We will continue to support the people of New South Wales as they go through one of the toughest challenges of this COVID-19 pandemic.
I'm advised by the minister for health that the number of cases in 2021 is already almost 50 per cent higher than the total number of cases in 2020. That is the difference in 2021: the delta variant of this virus is impacting nations all around the world. The whole world is in a battle against the delta strain of this virus, and this country, our country, continues to perform. (Time expired)
Climate Change
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (14:35): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister please update the House on the importance of a technology led approach to reducing emissions? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:35): I thank the member for Bass for her question and for her strong commitment to low-emission technologies and the role they can play in industry in northern Tasmania, and in particular her commitment to the potential of hydrogen in Bell Bay in her electorate. She knows there are only two ways to reduce emissions: technology or taxes—and this government picks technology.
The Morrison government's Technology Investment Roadmap is positioning Australia to be a leader in next-generation clean-energy low-emission technologies that will make net zero practically achievable. The road map will drive $80 billion of combined public and private sector investment and, indeed, 160,000 jobs over the next decade, and our plan is already delivering results. Our emissions are down 20 per cent on the 2005 levels. They've fallen faster than in Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the United States, the OECD average, and we're on track to meet and beat our 2030 targets. Central to that has been world-beating levels of installation of solar, farming practices that we just heard about from the minister of agriculture, and energy efficiency in manufacturing and elsewhere.
But it's not enough to just reduce our emissions. Countries across the world need to reduce their emissions, and that's the opportunity that technology provides. That's why we have committed $568 million to low-emission technology partnerships across the world. We've already signed agreements with the UK, Japan, Singapore and Germany to use lower emissions technologies like hydrogen, healthy soils and clean steel. These are actions and outcomes that matter.
We are getting on with the job, and that's the Australian way. But I am asked about alternatives. The alternative is what's offered by those opposite, who refuse to tell Australians what their 2030 target is. The essence of the Paris Agreement, central to the Paris Agreement, is having a 2030 target. They don't want to talk about a 2030 target. They don't want to talk about their plan either. They don't have a plan. There is no plan. They just want to talk Australia down. Well, that's not the Australian way. The Australian way is to get on with the job and to deliver. Our track record of delivery is one that all Australians can be proud of.
COVID-19: Lockdowns
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (14:38): [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. On 24 June, eight days after the Bondi cluster began, the Prime Minister commended the Premier of New South Wales for resisting a lockdown. Melbourne had tackled an outbreak of the delta strain less than a month earlier. How many people have contracted COVID and been hospitalised since the Prime Minister told the Premier she should resist taking necessary action to keep the community safe?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:39): The figures I have are that there are 297 people in New South Wales who are currently in hospital, 60 in ICU and 28 on ventilators. There were 356 cases today.
I addressed this matter in a question recently when the same matter was raised. It has been the case that, in the past, New South Wales has had success in being able to contain outbreaks and remain open. That is true. They were able to do that. New South Wales has been acknowledged as having one of the best testing, tracing, isolating and quarantine systems not just in Australia but in the world. But there have certainly been lessons learnt over the course of these many past weeks, and the government doesn't deny that. That's why, when we came together as a national cabinet, we came to the agreed position right across the national cabinet that, in phase A of this national plan, short, sharp lockdowns are what is necessary in response to the delta variant. That is the response that the federal government supports—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left will cease interjecting.
Mr MORRISON: and that is why we are backing up that policy with the economic supports that are put in place—with the COVID disaster assistance payment, which commences from the first day of any lockdown—consistent with the declaration of a Commonwealth hotspot. It is why we have entered into financial support agreements with the states and territories, whether it be in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, or South Australia, to provide fifty-fifty support—
Ms McBain interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Eden-Monaro!
Mr MORRISON: for funding the necessary business supports to make those lockdowns a success. It is why the ADF are sent in. It is why we have pulled forward doses of, in particular, the Pfizer vaccine. As I've said, 386,000 doses are being brought forward on top of the existing allocations to New South Wales to address this outbreak in New South Wales. The delta strain is a great challenge for the country. It's a great challenge for New South Wales right now. And we're going to continue working together to combat the delta strain in New South Wales and ensure that we all get through this. And I would seek the support of all in this chamber to support that program and not undermine those efforts.
Environment: Great Barrier Reef
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister advise the House on the Morrison government's world-leading approach to the protection of our oceans, our marine parks and, more particularly, our Great Barrier Reef?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (14:42): It's a pleasure to take a question from the member for Leichhardt, our dynamic reef envoy championing the reef on the national and international stage, and I want to thank him for his recent work leading a field trip of ambassadors to the reef to demonstrate the management that Australia takes so seriously—introducing the scientists, the work that is happening and the marine park managers.
The Morrison government is deeply invested in protecting the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef. The tourism industry, traditional owners, farmers, fishers, scientists, marine park managers and reef communities all rely on our commitment to the reef, demonstrated by a $3 billion joint investment with the Queensland government. Benchmarked against global standards, Australia's management of the reef is considered by many to be the gold standard. This was acknowledged recently by the technical experts to the World Heritage Committee, whose advice in the lead-up to this year's meeting said that it:
Commends the State Party—
Australia—
for the strong and continued efforts to create conditions for the implementation of the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan … including through unprecedented financial commitments.
The centrepiece of Australia's reef protection efforts is indeed the Reef 2050 Plan. The core proposition of this plan is how we make the reef as healthy and resilient as it possibly can be in the face of its biggest challenge, climate change. The plan is being delivered and it's achieving results. We've reduced pressures on the reef, we've built reef resilience and we've strengthened partnerships for the future. We're pleased that a bid by UNESCO to 'in danger' list the Great Barrier Reef was overwhelming rejected by the World Heritage Committee at the recent 44th session. In fact, the words 'in danger' did not appear anywhere on the final decision. Twenty of 21 members of the committee spoke in support of Australia's position that the reef should not be in-danger listed, an overwhelming consensus.
And it's not just on the Great Barrier Reef where we're leading the world in environmental management. As part of the last budget, we had a $100 million investment to continue our world- and region-leading work: blue carbon technology, getting plastic out of the oceans, restoring ecosystems and contributing to the global task of reducing emissions. This builds on our re-establishment of oyster reefs along the coastline, our determination to tackle ghost nets—those walls of death in the water—and our beach clean-ups in communities up and down our coastline. We are recognised as a global leader in ocean protection—assisting our Pacific neighbours, leading by example in our domestic waters—and we will continue to protect the iconic Great Barrier Reef.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (14:45): My question is to the Prime Minister. The Morrison government promised that aged-care workers would be fully vaccinated against COVID by Easter. Four months on, more than half are still waiting. Today the New South Wales minister for health said he'd never been asked by the Morrison government to put in place an order for mandatory vaccination of aged-care workers. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility for his mess, which is leaving vulnerable Australians at risk?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:45): I will ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care to add to this answer. The matter of mandatory vaccination of aged-care workers was the subject of a national cabinet decision attended by the Premier of New South Wales, where, with the exception of Victoria and the ACT, who have a different set of arrangements that relate to public health orders relating to aged care, all, including the New South Wales Premier, agreed to put in place those public health orders, and I have received several updates from the Premier of New South Wales about their progress towards achieving that. Now, I can only refer to those matters as they've been discussed between me, as Prime Minister, and the Premier of New South Wales. I can't speak to the state of knowledge of the minister for health in New South Wales, but I'll ask the Minister for Health and Aged Care to add further to the answer.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:46): In relation to aged-care staff, at this stage the latest advice I have is that there've been 158,204 first vaccinations, or 57.5 per cent of the workforce; 102,771, or 37.3 per cent, of the workforce; or 260,975 all up. As the Prime Minister said, in relation to the very constructive work we've been able to do with all states and territories, on 28 June 2021 national cabinet met and agreed to mandate that at least the first dose of a COVID vaccine be administered by mid-September 2021. That work has been carried on, on 28 July and on 4 August, in discussions by the Aged Care Advisory Group of the medical expert panel, the AHPPC. On 2 August the AHPPC approved and published the guidelines on mandatory vaccination of residential aged-care workers, which were then published on 3 August. That's publicly available. AHPPC has been meeting daily, and this has been raised on multiple occasions and on the advice of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Michael Kidd, to me today; and on 10 August, following the Western Australian public health order, there was further discussion at the AHPPC. Indeed, the Western Australian Chief Health Officer only yesterday published the Residential Aged Care Facility Worker Access Directions. It has also been raised in health ministers' meetings as a matter, and what we're seeing is all states and territories making very good progress not just with the vaccinations but also with the orders. We thank Western Australia for their work. We thank all the states and territories for their cooperation.
Climate Change
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Can the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is backing Australian ingenuity and innovation to reduce emissions here and around the world? Is the minister aware of anything that might stand in the way of this approach?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:49): I thank the member for Sturt for his question and for his commitment to technology led approaches to bringing down emissions. Of course, he knows that in Australia we have some of the best and brightest when it comes to low-emissions technologies, and we're backing them. We're backing them in South Australia, in places like the world-leading Hydrogen Park at Tonsley. We're backing Australian innovation and ingenuity. We're backing them to get that balance right between healthy environment and healthy economy. That's what it's all about, and the way to do that is with technology-driven approaches in places like Gladstone, where we're backing hydrogen for the Yarwun Alumina Refinery there. We're backing our dairy farmers to bring down emissions and bring down the cost of their energy at places like Nowra, where we've recently backed a microgrid for the dairy farmers there—one which can then be replicated at dairy farms right across Australia. And we're backing regional communities, including in the member for Indi's electorate. We were talking about microgrids just earlier. We're backing a sevenfold increase in electric-vehicle-charging stations. The change is happening, and we want to see more of it. That's why we've expanded ARENA so that it can invest in all technologies—clean hydrogen, wherever the clean hydrogen might come from; low-emissions steel and aluminium; healthy soil, soil carbon; stored energy. All of those technologies are part of a portfolio which have the potential to eliminate or substantially reduce emissions in sectors responsible for 90 per cent of not just Australia's but the world's emissions. That's our commitment.
I was asked about things that stand in the way of this approach. Those opposite are standing in the way of investment in more technology, because it was just last week that they teamed up with the Greens to vote against the Technology Investment Roadmap. They want to put a handbrake on new technologies that will bring down emissions, strengthen industry, strengthen manufacturing and strengthen agriculture in this country. Not once but four times now they have teamed up with the Greens to vote against low-emissions technologies. If it isn't to be technology, it is to be taxes, and we know those opposite have never seen a tax they don't like. Their track record is to solve problems through taxation. That's not our approach. We won't vandalise our economy. We're getting on with the job of delivering emissions reductions through a technology-led approach.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the government's announcement that doses of the Moderna vaccine will be available from September. Can the Prime Minister confirm that Moderna has been administered in the United States since December last year, in France, Germany and Italy since January, in Singapore since March, in the UK and Canada since April and in Japan since May?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:52): I'm happy to take those dates on notice, but my understanding is that they are correct. In addition to that, though, what we have done in Australia is that we've put in place a system which included six principal contracts for vaccine acquisition in Australia. That includes, firstly, 40 million Pfizer vaccines. We are in that process. Secondly, we have the AstraZeneca vaccines, over 53 million of which have been acquired. It's very important. But for the fact that we made the decision for sovereign vaccine manufacturing, it is clear, we would not have been able to receive the vast majority of those. We did that in light of the times that were available for international distributions of vaccines to Australia and New Zealand. In addition to that, we've acquired 51 million Novavax.
Dr Leigh interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Fenner will cease interjecting.
Mr HUNT: We also placed an order for over 50 million University of Queensland molecular clamp vaccines. That was not ultimately successful, but I think it was an important investment. We've also acquired enough for every Australian for the COVAX Facility. As well as that, there are 25 million Moderna vaccines. That approval, which the TGA has now completed and which I welcome, leads us to be able to deliver that vaccine commencing in the second half of September, subject to final confirmation of supply arrangements. But, on the advice that I had on the weekend, that remains the expected time frame for the first of those 10 million doses this year. Next year, of course, we have the 15 million additional doses of Moderna, and beyond that we also have 60 million doses of Pfizer. What does all of this mean? It means that Australia has a sufficient supply to deliver the opportunity for every Australian to be vaccinated during the course of this year, and to be vaccinated safely—to have that approval from the medical regulator.
There were those who were urging that these processes be skipped. There were those who were casting doubt on AstraZeneca during the course of this year.
Mr Albanese: Who?
Mr HUNT: If you'd like me to answer who cast doubt on AstraZeneca, then I'm very happy to do that. If I may:
Feels like Australia is being shortchanged with an inferior vaccine—
AstraZeneca. She also said:
The issue though is that the rest of the country is going to be offered a lower efficacious vaccine—the AstraZeneca …
The person in question is Michelle Ananda-Rajah, the hand-picked candidate for Higgins.
The SPEAKER: Just before I go to the next question—
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting!
An honourable member interjecting—
The SPEAKER: That is a perfect example for members of the House. If they interject and the minister responds to it, they might rethink about why they're interjecting and whether that's a good idea.
Climate Change
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (14:56): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister please update the House on the outcome of police attending to the so-called protests that took place this morning in Canberra?
Mrs ANDREWS (McPherson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:56): I thank the member for his question. The incidents this morning that were conducted outside this place were not conducted in the usual peaceful way that we are accustomed to seeing events take place outside this place. They were not registered and they were not expected. And, frankly, they weren't protests. Let's call it what it was: it was premeditated vandalism and property damage.
The Australian Federal Police responded very quickly to both of these incidents and eight people have been arrested. Three offenders were put under arrest at the Lodge and AFP officers arrested a further five offenders at Parliament House. Once again, the AFP has been at the front line, and I thank them for their ongoing dedication to keeping our community here safe.
I join with the Prime Minister and other members of this place in saying that this sort of violent, damaging protest has no place in Australian political debate. I think Australians will be very shocked by the scenes that they will see replayed from out the front and in our national capital today, because they know that this is not how we get a point across in Australia. We all condemn this sort of wilful planned behaviour which, frankly, endangers protesters, the public and law enforcement officers alike. This is not the Australian way.
I would also like to make the point, as I did when my own office was vandalised about a month ago, that damage to public property is not a minor matter. It ends up costing every single taxpayer. It's stupid, it's unnecessary and it's against the law. I say to these people that when you damage public property you do even more damage to your own cause. The right to protest is a fundamental right in our society and we all respect peaceful protests that are conducted safely and lawfully. But our government will not be swayed by attempts to intimidate through violence or destruction. Our law enforcement agencies will respond swiftly and decisively, as they have today, to incidents of this nature.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Ms CATHERINE KING (Ballarat) (14:59): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Does the minister support the creation of electronic vaccination certificates which passengers will need to fly within Australia and overseas?
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on a point of order.
Mr Porter: Not every issue that might end up with some relationship to an aeroplane should be able to be answered by the particular minister in question. I think that there are clearly other ministers, and predominantly, primarily and substantively that is a health issue.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left, particularly the member for Solomon, never help when I'm hearing points of order. If they're not convinced about never helping me, I hope they're convinced they're not helping the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Burke: On the point of order: this question asks the minister who, as far as the House is concerned, is responsible for answering questions on aviation about the rules as to whether people are allowed to fly. Now, this is not a long bow in terms of responsibility. This is about whether people get to fly, and he's meant to be able to answer questions on aviation policy. There would be a whole series of dixers that are out of order routinely if the aviation minister can't tell us an answer on the rules about whether or not people are allowed to fly.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on the point of order.
Mr Porter: I understand the point about rules, but those rules either would emanate from state based public health acts—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: This is not a debate.
Mr Porter: or the Commonwealth Biosecurity Act, which means that they would necessarily be a question directed to the health minister; or, alternatively, would emanate from workplace relations law, in which case it would be another minister entirely.
The SPEAKER: I'll just go to rule on this question, without going through the Practice again in great detail. I take the points each are making, but I do think ministers have got, as the Practice points out, the ability to refer questions to other ministers if, in their opinion, the matter's more of a responsibility for other ministers. That principle is there. It doesn't mean the questions can't be asked, but I think on this occasion the point the Leader of the House is making has some validity to it because it wouldn't be something a minister responsible for aviation would make on their own; it would be something that would be enacted as a result of decisions of other ministries.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia and Deputy Leader of the National Party) (15:02): I thank the member for her question. As I would hope the member and those opposite would appreciate, the Deputy Prime Minister is unable to attend and was, in fact, planning to be here this week, but couldn't inadvertently because of COVID. Obviously we are working through the arrangements. I am acting on his behalf. I am prepared to take that on notice and work with the other relevant agencies, such as health; the Attorney-General; and the workplace minister to make sure that there is an appropriate answer to the question asked. But if those opposite were serious about this, they would have made sure that they posed it to the appropriate minister.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (15:03): My question is to the Minister for Regional Health. Will the minister please update the House on what action the Morrison-Joyce government is taking to protect regional, rural and remote Australians in the fight against the COVID pandemic?
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne—Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment and Minister for Regional Health) (15:03): First of all, I'd like to thank the member for Cowper for his question and acknowledge his deep concern for the welfare of his constituents. That's evidenced by his wonderful, stellar career serving in the New South Wales Police Force and defending people as a lawyer. He's also spoken up to defend the rights of his constituents and make sure they are getting the same care that everyone else in Australia is getting.
The Morrison-Joyce government is delivering across our wide, brown land. I can tell the House that 3.7 million doses of vaccine have already been delivered to 2½ million individuals in regional and rural Australia. The state system is obviously supported. The states all get support from the Commonwealth government, whether you're getting your vaccine in one of the state systems, the general practices, the community vaccination centres, the Aboriginal community controlled health organisations, the pharmacies or even the Flying Doctor Service.
The brunt of the delivery of the vaccine has been, from the beginning, through general practices. There are 1,500 in regional and rural Australia who are delivering vaccines and have been. More are coming on board as well. Indeed, there are 73 Commonwealth vaccination centres in regional Australia. There are 125 Aboriginal community controlled health organisations that have delivered to 148,000 Indigenous and other people who attend their centres. We have also announced that, in remote Australia and in Indigenous communities, Pfizer is available, including to 12- to 15-year-olds and those with chronic medical conditions.
Many of my former medical colleagues in general practice are bearing up well under this huge program and many of my constituents too are welcoming the enrolment of pharmacies into delivering vaccines as well. We have 375 already delivering in regional Australia, including in the good member's electorate. Plunkett's Pharmacy will come on board next week, and they have a branch also in my home town of Wauchope. Old Bar Pharmacy, also in my electorate, have already delivered 500, and they've only been getting vaccines for a couple of weeks.
I spoke with the Royal Flying Doctor Service, and Frank Quinlan told me that they have been to 95 different places, whether it's Broome in the north-west or Black Hole in the middle of Queensland. When they turned up in Tibooburra, the bush telegraph was alive and well. They had seven people booked in, but they called past the pub and, by the time they flew out, they had delivered 70. So the bush telegraph is alive and well. I'd also like to thank Tyrone Hand, when they turned up at Fitzroy Crossing— (Time expired)
MOTIONS
COVID-19: Member for Dawson
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:06): by leave—I move:
That the House:
(1) applauds the sacrifices made by the Australian people to keep each other safe;
(2) thanks the heroes of the pandemic - our scientists, doctors, nurses, aged care and disability workers, cleaners and other essential workers;
(3) condemns the comments of the Member for Dawson prior to Question Time designed to use our national Parliament to spread misinformation and undermine the actions of Australians to defeat COVID-19;
(4) rejects statements that 'masks don't work', 'lockdowns don't work' and the describing of our health professionals as 'dictatorial medical bureaucrats'; and
(5) calls on all members to refrain from making ill-informed comments at a time when the pandemic represents a serious threat to the health of Australians.
Just prior to question time is the key position for the last speaker for the government—one which exposes, to the Australian public, tactics on both sides of the House. That's the key slot prior to 2 pm that occurs in the parliament. The government chose to give that spot to the member for Dawson, which is why I move the motion I read out. The fact is that the member for Dawson has engaged in behaviour over hydroxychloroquine, over unproven and indeed dangerous remedies, which are completely contradictory to the scientific advice and to the advice of our health professionals.
There has been some debate in this parliament about the two jobs that we say—and indeed the Prime Minister, when he addressed the National Press Club in January this year, said—are a priority for the government: the rollout of the vaccine, and quarantine facilities that are purpose built and keep people safe. The fact is that, when it comes to the rollout of the vaccine, our scientists have done an absolutely magnificent job. There's debate over the speed at which our rollout has gone. When we look at the rollout, the fact is we are last in the developed world. We're struggling to get in the top 80 in the entire world for the rollout of the vaccine. Last year, when companies like Moderna and Pfizer were promoting the idea of an mRNA vaccine, there was some scepticism as to whether it could be achieved and what the time frame would be. But, as we asked about in questions today in relation to Moderna, between the outbreak of COVID-19 originating in China and the end of 2020 Moderna had already delivered 100 million vaccinations to the US government. Pfizer was being delivered. Our scientists and our health professionals performed miracles to take what was an unknown disease, beginning in China and then spreading around the world, and come up with real solutions based upon science.
What parliaments have done around the world, and what the Australian people have been magnificent on, is respond to the threat that this pandemic represented. Australians have listened to the advice of our health professionals. They have made sacrifices. They've stayed at home. They've kept safe from each other. They have in many cases made sacrifices that have cost them their jobs and their incomes. Certainly every Australian's way of life has been impacted as a result of this. But what we have also had throughout this pandemic is a very small minority of people here in Australia but also overseas—and we saw the actions of some of the conspiracy theorists in the United States, leading to a raid on the White House in January earlier this year—promoting through Facebook, through a range of social media posts, ideas that are frankly not based upon science but based upon conspiracies, based upon spreading fear and based upon spreading misinformation. We saw the end result of those consequences in the rallies that took place just weeks ago. The violent rally in Sydney should have been condemned, and anyone promoting it should have been condemned, just like the minister was quite right to condemn any violence and the inappropriate way of protesting that occurred outside this parliament and at the Prime Minister's residence earlier today.
What we saw, from the punching of a horse down to attacks on police—attacks on those brave men and women who take the duty of keeping us safe—was people having those mass demonstrations in order to promote civil disobedience. For many people, you would think that they might have been on the fringe of society. They'd heard misinformation. They were concerned about the sacrifices they were being asked to make and didn't have a clear explanation as to why. For many people who turned up, just frustrated, you can perhaps think that maybe they were just misguided. But for a member of the House of Representatives to attend a rally in Mackay, as the member for Dawson did, supporting these violent demonstrations that took place is an insult to those heroes of the pandemic.
That's why this motion recognises our scientists, our doctors, our nurses, our aged-care and disability workers, our cleaners, our truck drivers and our supermarket workers, who've made all those sacrifices to keep us safe. Yet we have a member of the government, a member of the Liberal-National Party, coming into this parliament and, in the key slot before question time, promoting these conspiracy theories by saying, as he did in his contribution, that it's okay to say, 'Masks don't work—fact,' to say, 'Lockdowns don't destroy the virus, but they do destroy people's livelihoods and people's lives,' to refer to our medical heroes not as heroes of the pandemic but as 'dictatorial medical bureaucrats' who 'need to recognise these facts and stop spreading fear.' This is at a time when in the last days, each and every day, there have been fatalities in New South Wales, including over the weekend one of my constituents—a constituent in an aged-care home in Summer Hill who caught the virus because an aged-care worker had not been fully vaccinated. That person died because they had not been kept safe. What we had from this member of parliament today was: 'Some people will catch it. Tragically, some people will die from it. That's inevitable, and we have to accept it.' That's what he said. He then went on to say: 'Open society back up! Restore our freedoms! End this madness!' I'll tell you what madness is. Madness is saying let this disease rip; let people die; let whole economies be shut down; let's stop our being able to return to our way of life. That is what is madness—the madness of conspiracy theorists, the madness of the rump in the National Party who replaced the former Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Riverina, as its leader as a result of the idea of the tail wagging the National Party dog, because the former Deputy Prime Minister wouldn't have a bar of this sort of nonsense. But the current one is quite happy to give it a tick.
The Liberal and National parties are quite happy to give a voice to the member for Dawson. He's not sitting on the crossbench. I'll tell you when we'll take you, the government, seriously. We'll take the government seriously when the member for Dawson is expelled from the party and is sitting over there with the member for Hughes. The member for Hughes also has spouted these sorts of conspiracy theories and was allowed to do it day after day, week after week, month after month at a time when our heroes of the pandemic have been doing great work each and every day. They are being undermined by someone paid by the taxpayer and with the great honour of sitting in this House of Representatives. But with that great honour of sitting in the House of Representatives comes obligation: an obligation to be fair dinkum, an obligation to promote truth, an obligation not to promote conspiracy theories, an obligation to listen to the health professionals.
The health professionals have had a difficult task. It is true that this was not anticipated. Anyone early in 2019 who would have said at the time of the contest of the last election that this would be a dominant issue during this term of parliament—not even Nostradamus could have done that. But the fact is that Australians in workplaces, some of the poorest-paid Australians—our cleaners, those people who look after people in aged-care homes—are risking their lives by going in and helping vulnerable Australians each and every day, and they are prepared to do that. Aged-care workers, who were told they would be fully vaccinated by Easter but who were then told, 'No, just go and see a doctor; you're on your own when it comes to being vaccinated,' are our heroes, and they deserve so much better. Under 40 per cent of our people in disability care have been, we learnt yesterday, vaccinated—pretty close to one in three—and under half of our aged-care workers have been vaccinated. They are our heroes. They deserve our thanks and our gratitude. But what they get is an insult from the member for Dawson, and what's worse is that those people who are members of grieving families actually heard in our national parliament a member of parliament stand up and essentially say—as he did explicitly, not essentially—'COVID-19 is going to be with us forever, just like the flu.'
This is not the same as the flu—this is not the same as the flu. The member for Dawson went on to say, 'And just like the flu, we will have to live with it, not the constant fear of it.' Well, I've got to say this: I'm scared and Australians are scared of COVID. There is fear because they're fearful of something that's scary. This is having an impact. People are dying. People are getting sick. There are almost 30 people in hospital today who are on ventilators. They're on ventilators and being kept alive by a machine. There are almost double that number, or around about double that number, who are in hospital in ICU. This is a scary disease that requires an appropriate response.
This parliament needs to dissociate itself from the member for Dawson's comments. He was let go for far too long with his mad theories about what drugs people should take. We didn't quite have what they had in the United States, drinking bleach and various other things, but we've had quite inappropriate theories promoted by the member for Dawson. That's why this motion should be supported, and that's why the member for Macarthur has seconded this motion.
The SPEAKER: Not yet, he hasn't.
Mr ALBANESE: He will be—
The SPEAKER: It's called anticipating.
Mr ALBANESE: as a doctor, and as someone who is a strong advocate for people's health and who has played such a constructive role during this pandemic.
The SPEAKER: Is the motion seconded?
Dr Freelander: I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:23): On 20 January 2020 the National Incident Room for COVID-19 was activated by the government. It wasn't until 12 March that the World Health Organization declared a COVID-19 pandemic. But by that time Australia had already called it. Australia had already begun its response. Australia had already closed its borders. It was only the day after that that the governments of Australia, the states and territories, came together. I remember the day very, very well. We were out in Western Sydney, at Bankwest Stadium, and we were updated during the course of that meeting on the rapid escalation in cases that had been unanticipated. I recall at the commencement of that meeting that the then Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, had already reported to the premiers, the chief ministers and me and those who were also in attendance that day. The Governor of the Reserve Bank was there on that day to speak about what the potential economic consequences of this were. And the head of the National Coordination Mechanism, which had been set up in the Department of Home Affairs to ensure there was integration between industry, business and governments in handling our response to the pandemic, was there. Later that day, on the 13th, we agreed that the federation had to operate in a very different way to how it had previously throughout its entire history.
Since that day we have come together on 50 occasions, as Australians of different political persuasions, as governments, small and large, to work together to manage our response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On 50 occasions we have met in good faith and in good sense to take the necessary steps needed to protect Australian lives and protect Australian livelihoods. It's true that over the course of that time, from that day to this one, no government has got everything right, whether here in Australia or anywhere else around the world, but I remember those fears at that time very vividly. I remember the fears of what this could do to our most vulnerable communities, and I particularly recall—and I remember discussing it with the Minister for Indigenous Australians—the community we feared for most was Indigenous Australians and the impact it would have on them.
We thought that across our country, where we have strong public health systems—and aren't we grateful for that, and the investments that we've made in our health systems in this country? We knew that would provide us and afford us some measure of protections, and we were also thinking of what this might mean for the countries around us, particularly our Pacific family and friends and what this virus may do to them. We were already activating and engaging with them as to how we might help them through this crisis.
If I had told you on that day, on 13 March 2020, as the world was struck down by this pandemic over the next 18 months, that Australia would have one of the lowest fatality rates in the world, compared to countries just like Australia, and would save over 30,000 lives, you certainly would have believed me. If I'd told you we were going to go into recession at that time because of the pandemic, you certainly would have believed me when I said that. But if I told you that less than 12 months after that a million people would be back at work and Australia's economy would be stronger at that point on the other side than what it was before, if I told you that we'd work together with the states and territories so that around about half a million people would come through our borders and that the quarantine system, put together by states and territories with the Commonwealth, would have a 99.9 per cent effectiveness rate in stopping the transmission of the virus as those half a million people came to the country, you wouldn't have believed me.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: And those opposite might mock, but this is what Australians have achieved. More than 30,000 lives saved, working with our industry and businesses, JobKeeper COVID supplements, cashflow bonus and now the COVID disaster payment. Australians have been carrying Australians through this crisis, and they have had the great support of their governments at unprecedented levels—working each and every day as 'team Australia' to get this as right as we possibly can.
One of the key things we have done throughout this is we have been informed by the best possible medical advice and by the best medical advisers in the world. Whether it be the Therapeutic Goods Administration, whether it be our Chief Medical Officer, whether it be the expert medical panel: all of these people and organisations have been informing us. These groups have been meeting on an almost daily basis for 18 months, and my government, and the governments around this country, have listened carefully, taken that advice and acted accordingly. And Australia, together, has saved lives and saved livelihoods.
That is what we've done, and that's why my government does not support misinformation in any way, shape or form. We do not. That is not the position of the government. My government will not support those statements where there is misinformation that is out and about in the community, whether it's posted on Facebook or in social media or it's written in articles or statements made in this chamber or anywhere else.
But what I'm not going to do is engage in a partisan debate on this. I'm not, because what I know is that Australians aren't interested in the politics of COVID. They're not interested in the noise of COVID and they're not interested in the shouting of COVID. What they're interested in is that we make our Australian way through this crisis. And I'll tell you what: our Australian way through this crisis has stood tall in the world. Australia's role in this crisis has stood tall in the world—whether it's Bill Gates or others who have looked at what has happened around the world and have said that Australia has stood out. Now, we haven't got everything right, but where we haven't, I tell you we've applied ourselves to address those problems, to fix those problems and to get it right. It doesn't matter how you start the race; it's how you finish the race. It's how you finish the race—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left!
Mr MORRISON: and we are going to finish this race, as a government, when it comes to this issue. We're going to finish this race and we're going to run the race all the way to the finish line, but we're going to do it as team Australia. We're not going to do it in a way which seeks to divide Australians and set Australians one against the other. We're not going to do it in a way which seeks to demonise people in this country. We're going to listen carefully to the people of Australia. We're going to listen carefully to their anxieties and concerns, and we're going to work with them.
Our vaccine is free. Our vaccine is not mandatory. It is necessary that during the suppression phase we have the lockdowns and we have the restrictions. They're necessary for the public health of this nation. So my government will continue to focus on the job at hand. My government will continue to focus on the public health of Australians. It will continue to focus on working together with Australians, not on setting them apart from one another. My government will focus on the results that Australians want to achieve. For others, it is up to them. If they want to undermine that effort with misinformation and if they want to undermine that effort by undermining the government's attempts and talking Australia down—if they wish to do that—that is a matter for them. My government will remain focused on the public health, lives and livelihoods of Australians.
As we continue to roll out the vaccine we will, by the end of this year, be able to say that we have saved the lives of over 30,000 Australians, we have put a million people back into work, we have vaccinated the country and we're achieving the goals that we have set. That is what Australians are focused on. They're interested in their health, their jobs and their futures. They're not interested in the politics of COVID. They're not interested in the phony debates. What they're interested in is the results in Australian lives and livelihoods being saved. That's what we're focused on and that's what we will focus on every single day. We do not support misinformation in any way, shape or form. (Time expired)
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (15:33): Fifteen minutes and, like the name Voldemort, he couldn't even mention the member for Dawson's name. So the race that was not a race is now a race. For me, this is very, very personal. I have been contacted on multiple occasions in the last few weeks by my medical colleagues and by my relatives who work on the front line in intensive care in hospitals that are really under the pump—under pressure—because of the outbreak that's occurring in Sydney. There were 356 cases today and 60 in ICU, many on ventilators. Six deaths were associated with the outbreak at Liverpool Hospital because of a healthcare worker who was infected. To have the Leader of the Opposition move this motion today, I can only say thank God and thank you. It is about time those in government called to account those on their side who are undermining our response to the pandemic.
To those whose statements are costing lives and to those who are doing everything they can to undermine our national response to the biggest health crisis in over a century—I don't just mean the member for Dawson; I mean the member for Hughes, of course, the captain's pick at the last election; Senator Rennick; Senator Canavan; and others who are doing their best to cause increasing fear and distrust and undermine our response at a critical time in this pandemic—this delta variant, make no mistake, is a different game. We still do not know how this is going to end. We have to do everything we can to maximise our response, to maximise our immunisation rates and to maximise our social distancing. Of course people are fearful of what's happening, and with fear comes distrust. Many in my electorate have lost their livelihoods. Many in my electorate cannot see how they're going to pay their next mortgage repayment, can't see how they can protect their own kids and can't see their kids even going back to school. Yet we have people on the government benches who are actively undermining our response.
I don't like to see healthcare workers as heroes. I'm sure the member for Higgins can understand this. They get up every day and they go to work—some of them putting their lives at risk—because that's the job they do, because they care about people and because they want to make sure that our response is the best it can possibly be. That's the job they've signed up for. The nurses, the doctors, the cleaners, the pathology technicians—they're the people that save lives. I don't save lives sitting here as a member of parliament, but I recognise that it is a huge privilege. And with that privilege comes a huge responsibility.
When I see people on any side of politics doing active harm to our response to this health crisis, it makes me angry. They should not be ignored; they should be called out on every occasion, because what they are doing is disgraceful. I think any sensible person would understand that the time has to come for them to be called out. In countries like India, Brazil and Indonesia, we've seen thousands, hundreds of thousands and, indeed, even millions of deaths. To call this pandemic a virus like the flu is surely beyond any reason, beyond any acceptability. That we have a government, a Prime Minister and members of the government who ignore it, don't call it out and allow it to be propagated on social media and in the national media as acceptable is just wrong.
The member for Dawson needs to be called out, the member for Hughes needs to be called out, the senators need to be called out, because we need to recognise the harm that they are doing. The Prime Minister was right: we have fantastic medical professionals in infectious diseases, epidemiology, vaccines, and we are very grateful to have them and very grateful for the way that they have tried their very best to keep us all safe. But to see members of the government, and members of other political parties as well, doing what they can to destroy our response and not criticise them and not call them out is just wrong. I should also mention a previous member of this House, Clive Palmer. It is shameful what he is doing. He is actually letterboxing and messaging those in some of the most vulnerable electorates in Sydney, trying to undermine our response to this pandemic.
Every one of us should take that responsibility very, very seriously. And I know most members of the government do. But I think it is no longer acceptable to ignore the absolutely disgraceful comments from the member for Dawson—things like: 'Masks don't work,' 'Masks make no significant difference to the spread of COVID-19,' 'Lockdowns don't work,' 'Lockdowns don't destroy the virus, but they destroy people's livelihoods.' Imagine if you are locked down in Sydney and you're a tradesman or a manual worker and you're hearing this message from a member for parliament. Imagine what that does to your confidence in the medical advice you're being given. Now, just think about that.
All of us in this place have a responsibility to keep people safe. What we do does actually matter. We're not there in intensive care sucking the secretions out of people who have a tube down their throat, breathing with the use of a respirator. We're not there with people who aren't able to visit their grieving mother or father who is terminally ill with COVID-19. But we can make a difference, and we can make a difference by calling out people who actively seek to undermine our response.
I'm so grateful for the Leader of the Opposition moving this motion. It's one that everyone in this House should support. I think it is time that we do all work together and condemn these people—condemn members of our parliament that are undermining our response to this great health crisis and condemn those in the media who are doing the same thing, who are undermining our response. We all have to do that. If we all do it together, that's what will make a difference. I worry about all my colleagues, and my relatives, who are working at the front line of health care, because they are putting their lives at risk. If we can reduce the number of patients in intensive care, if we can reduce that risk for our healthcare workers, that is a very, very good thing. They are doing the job that they signed up to do to keep us safe.
I mention also our police forces, who are charged with compliance and making sure people do the right thing. In Sydney at the moment, they are doing a fantastic job as well. I really fully respect the very softly, softly approach that the New South Wales Police have taken on this, and I congratulate them on the job that they are doing. But, as leaders in our community, all of us should be doing the right thing and we should be calling out those, like the member for Dawson and others, who are actively seeking, for their own benefit, to undermine our response.
Question agreed to.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Manufacturing Industry
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (15:44): My question is to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. I ask the minister if he could please update the House on how the Morrison government's Modern Manufacturing Strategy is driving low-emissions technology and creating jobs?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (15:45): I thank the member for his question and for his great support, and continued support, of manufacturing in his very, very large electorate. Even during COVID, with the challenges that have been faced by Australian manufacturing, exports and profitability of Australian manufacturing have demonstrated the resilience of the sector and the future contribution that the sector can make to clean energy in Australia and, indeed, the world.
Through the first phase of COVID, in the March quarter 2021, manufacturing profits rose by 6.8 per cent and were 16 per cent higher over the year—a remarkable achievement given what those industries have endured during that first phase of COVID. In fact, manufacturing gross operating profits were up $38 billion in the year to March 2021, which represented 8½ per cent of the total profits across all Australian industries, which is again a remarkable result. And the monthly exports of manufactured goods increased in June 2021 in the most recent figures, up $0.8 billion, or 8.3 per cent, on May 2021. So this sector is showing remarkable resilience. That's why the Morrison government is continuing to focus its support on areas inside manufacturing of comparative advantage and strategic importance under our $1.5 billion Modern Manufacturing Strategy. And what we are seeking to do is to apply the skills and the technology of these extremely successful and profitable businesses to problems like emissions reductions, that we've been speaking about today, and prioritising sectors that can help in that regard such as recycling and clean energy and resources technology and critical minerals.
Looking at some of the very successful projects in recent grants rounds, Australian Vanadium, a Western Australian company, is going to use $3.9 million in funding to fast-track manufacturing of large-scale vanadium redox flow battery systems that can be used to support entire residential power grids as well as off-grid settings such as in mining or agriculture or remote communities. Then, in the Northern Territory we've seen Core Lithium. They'll be using a $6 million grant in funding to help build a pilot processing facility for the production of battery-grade lithium hydroxide at Darwin Harbour's Middle Arm Industrial Precinct. These projects are being supported by the Morrison government. They will enable that technology to move forward, and that will drive emissions down.
Another fine example is in round 2 of the Modern Manufacturing Fund. Sun Cable will receive $1 million. Sun Cable is an Australian founded, world-leading renewable energy company that is developing the world's largest solar farm here in Australia. This grant will further support Sun Cable's project to establish a solar array manufacturing facility in Darwin. These are real-life, real-time examples of the types of technologies that can get emissions down, leveraging off these fantastic successful, profitable manufacturing businesses that have been so resilient during the first phase of COVID.
Dunkley Electorate: Car Parks
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (15:48): [by video link] My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's claim Australians are the winners from the Commuter Car Park Program. Does the Prime Minister think commuters who use South Morang, Balaclava or Seaford stations, who were promised car parks before the election which were cancelled before construction even began, are winners?
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (15:48): I do thank the member for her question, and I remind the House that our government, in fact, has committed additional funding to allow the Frankston commuter car park in her electorate to be able to proceed, as we recently discussed when she came to my office to raise this issue and to advocate in relation to the Frankston commuter car park. It's very confusing what Labor's position is. Do they support the commuter car parks? It appears they do support a commuter car park in Frankston, and I welcome that. And I welcome the fact that we are committed to delivering it—500 spots in that multi-storey commuter car park—and many people on the Frankston line will benefit from that.
We're committed to the Macarthur commuter car park in the seat of the member for Macarthur. Labor's position on commuter car parks is really mystifyingly schizophrenic because, on the one hand, they criticise the Commuter Car Park program; on the other hand, we certainly don't hear members standing up and saying, 'Oh, the commuter car park that the Morrison government has promised for my electorate—I don't want that, because we're opposed to commuter car parks.'
I'll tell you what our position is. Our position is very consistent: commuter car parks are delivering benefits to citizens because they reduce congestion on the road network, because they allow people to drive to a railway station to park their car and then get on the train, thereby reducing congestion. There's a very sensible policy reason for this program, no doubt the very same policy reason which motivated the decision of the opposition to commit to a park-and-ride fund at the last election. And, of course, there are 11 commuter car parks committed to by the Morrison government which are also committed to by the other side of the House. So it is really mystifying trying to discern what Labor's position on this is, but our position is consistent. We're getting on with delivering commuter car parks, and I'm pleased to say that, just in the last week or so, the Ferny Grove commuter car park—
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat. The member for Scullin, on a point of order?
Mr Giles: Relevance: the minister was asked about three projects; he could perhaps mention one of them.
The SPEAKER: I say to the member for Scullin: if he'd only been asked about that, the member would have a stronger position, but it had a preamble that quoted the Prime Minister, which did open it up. But I'm listening to the minister.
Mr FLETCHER: The member for Scullin speaks of relevance. He's desperate for relevance. He thought this was his issue; he thought this was his moment in the sun.
The SPEAKER: The minister is now not being relevant to the question.
Mr FLETCHER: The fact is: we're getting on with delivering commuter car parks, including, just in the last week or two, the Ferny Grove commuter car park, a transit oriented development, indeed, in metropolitan Brisbane.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton will cease interjecting.
Mr FLETCHER: We've commenced construction on that, joined at the opening ceremony by the member for Ryan—I congratulate the member for Ryan—the Minister for Defence and indeed the Queensland Labor transport minister. We're pleased to be working with state governments around the country delivering commuter car parks.
Census
Mr CONNELLY (Stirling) (15:52): My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing. Will the minister please inform the House about the importance of the 2021 census and how it is fundamental to Australia being able to plan for our nation's future?
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer, Minister for Housing and Minister for Homelessness, Social and Community Housing) (15:52): Can I thank the member for Stirling for his question. It's a very important question, today being census day. Indeed, for most Australians, they will think of tonight as census night. I firstly want to encourage all Australians who have not yet been able to complete their survey to get on immediately—you can start it now, but certainly over the course of this evening—to complete your census survey.
The advertising by the Australian Bureau of Statistics this year was 'Every stat tells a story'. And every single statistic that will be provided by Australians tonight will inform future decisions of not just the federal government but state governments; local governments; indeed, community organisations throughout the country; and, of course, business. I want to thank the 3.6 million Australians who have completed a survey that covers nearly 10 million Australians. It means we're about a third of the way through, with the remaining two-thirds of Australians needing to complete their census tonight.
We have worked very hard to make the process easier and to make it simpler; early feedback seems to support that. We are hoping and working very hard between now and certainly the end of the evening, but for the remainder of this week, to make it as easy as possible for Australians to get online. The feedback is that it takes about 15 or 20 minutes. So, for Australians who are contemplating when they're going to do it, just get on and do it now. It's a quick and easy process.
Every stat truly does tell a story, and the information that is going to be provided by Australians tonight will inform decisions around health expenditure, around education expenditure, and certainly around infrastructure decisions. It will be used by organisations throughout the country, whether it's assisting with mental health or with so many other priorities of the Morrison government. We'll see statistics out mid next year. Consistent with the government's purpose and what the government has focused on over a long period of time, we have added two additional questions for this census. The first is a question asking about long-term health conditions, chronic health conditions—extraordinarily important. But one that will be close to many members on this side of the House, indeed in the whole parliament, will be asking about Defence Force service. We have had an emphasis on supporting our veterans. We want to know as much about them as we can—where they are, how we can support them. So the additional question on Defence Force service is going to be a great addition. Get on tonight and complete your census. We'll make it as easy as possible.
Mr Morrison: I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:55): I seek to make a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Prime Minister claimed to have been misrepresented?
Mr MORRISON: Yes, I do.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister may proceed.
Mr MORRISON: The member for McMahon said today, 'Why did the Prime Minister claim that electric vehicles would end the weekend?' Following that, the Manager of Opposition Business made a claim about a statement made on 7 April 2019. This is what I said on 7 April 2019 in relation to a question on this subject:
We don't have a problem with electric vehicles. In fact, we've been facilitating the development of the new technologies. What Bill Shorten was talking about is how long it actually takes to charge up a vehicle today. He clearly had no idea.
I went on to say:
… the point about it is not whether electric vehicles are good or bad, in fact, they have a role to play increasingly in the vehicle fleet of Australia over the next decade.
… … …
So the cheapest car you can currently buy as an electric vehicle presently, my understanding is that including all on-road costs and all the rest of it, it's about $45,000 to $50,000. That's the cheapest car Bill Shorten wants to make available for you to buy …
I said:
Bill Shorten wants to end the weekend, when it comes to his policy …
I don't support that policy. I don't support the Labor Party's bad policy. I support the coalition's good policy on electric vehicles.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Pensions and Benefits
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Employment, Workforce, Skills, Small and Family Business) (15:57): The Manager of Opposition Business asked a question regarding Anne from Punchbowl. I can inform the House that Anne has indeed been on the age pension since 1981. On 4 August the office of the Manager of Opposition Business quite rightly contacted Services Australia on behalf of Anne's son, who is the nominee. Anne was sent a letter requesting proof-of-identity documents to support her age pension. The Services Australia officer at the Leichhardt service centre quite rightly completed an alternative identity assessment when the nominee advised that clearly proof-of-identity documents were not available considering her age and that she had been on the pension for 40 years. The minister has commenced an investigation into this, hence my capacity to come back and report to the House, and the agency is identifying why this action was required of Anne in the very first place. So I thank the member for Watson for bringing it to the House's attention.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Minister for Industry, Science and Technology) (15:59): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Climate Change
The SPEAKER (15:59): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Shortland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Federal Government's continuing failure to take action on climate change in light of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and the impact of this inaction on job creation and the environment.
I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (15:59): It has been a pretty hard day for people today. If you think about it, people who watched the press conference at 11 am this morning got the shocking news about the New South Wales cases, and that followed on from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group report, which was very depressing. It was a sober wake-up call for a nation and a world that didn't need one, to be quite honest.
But we can't ignore the truth. The truth is that scientists are observing climate changes in every region and across the whole climate system. Many of the changes already observed are unprecedented in thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of years. Modelling of all five trajectories that they looked at has average temperatures at more than 1.5 degrees Celsius higher by the 2030s, a figure we were hoping to avoid until much later in this century. The report finds that, with 1.5 degrees of global warming, the impacts will include changes to rainfall patterns, with impacts on agriculture; continuous sea level rises, contributing to more flooding; increased permafrost thawing, melting of glaciers and ice sheets and loss of summer Arctic ice; and changes to the ocean, dramatically affecting the ocean ecosystems.
The good news is that the report finds that human actions still have the potential to limit climate change. We should never lose sight of that fact. It is not too late to change this and avoid the worst of climate change. But it will require strong, rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, including getting to net zero emissions.
That's why Labor have been consistent in our support for strong action on climate change. We are the only party of government that have ever taken real action on climate change. We are the only party of government that have legislated a hard cap on greenhouse gas emissions. We've taken strong climate change policies to every election since 1993. Since 1993 we've had strong policies on climate change. We do this not just because it's the right thing for the environment but because it's the right thing for the economy. It's the right thing for the economy because the economic impact of unconstrained climate change will be disastrous for Australia. Conversely, if we seize the economic opportunities that come with the move to decarbonise the world, Australia can benefit more than most, if not every other nation on the earth.
This is a story people are familiar with. They understand in their guts that we have the privilege of being on the continent with the greatest solar radiation in the world. If anyone can seize the opportunities of solar power, it's Australia. We've also got great wind resources both onshore and offshore. That means that we can have a burgeoning supply of solar and wind power not just to power Australia but to power South-East Asia. That's something that's really exciting. It's something that the private sector is seizing right now.
We have all the key inputs into renewable energy manufacturing and battery manufacturing. We can also manufacture batteries. We've seen great proposals both at Townsville and in the Hunter, in the member for Paterson's own electorate, that can have a huge impact on local communities. There's also no reason why we can't manufacturer electric vehicles in this country. The one I'm most passionate about is hydrogen and energy intensive manufacturing. If we can just grab 6½ per cent of the global green steel market, we could have 25,000 manufacturing jobs in places like Newcastle and Gladstone making green steel. I'm passionate about the steel city becoming the steel city again.
These are the opportunities, and these are the opportunities that Labor has supported throughout its period. That's why under Anthony Albanese we've announced the $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund. That's why we've announced a $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. That's why we've announced $200 million for community batteries and $200 million for electric vehicles. We are the party that's committed to taking strong action on climate change to help the environment and to seize the economic opportunities that come with it, because, unlike those opposite, we won't bury our heads in the sand.
In the time remaining, I'm going to give people a little foretaste, a taste, of what they're going to get from the minister for emissions reduction. He will give us 10 minutes of mendacity—10 minutes of a numbers soup where his entire strategy is just to throw numbers at you until you're entirely confused about what has gone on. The first number I predict he'll use—and I'm doing a bit of fortune-telling, but, based on what the Prime Minister said yesterday and today, I've got a good chance—is in bragging about the fact that Australia has reduced its emissions by 20 per cent since 2005. And that's true. But how did we get that 20 per cent reduction since 2005? Well, in the first two years, between 2005 and 2007, under John Howard, emissions actually increased by 2.4 per cent. They didn't go down; they went up. Under the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments, between 2007 and 2013, emissions fell by a massive 14 per cent—14 per cent. And what's happened since then? Between 2013 and 2019, under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, annual emissions fell by four per cent and then, last year, emissions fell by another four per cent.
Mr Perrett: I wonder what happened last year!
Mr CONROY: Exactly, and I'll come to that, Member for Moreton. So there's been a 20 per cent reduction since 2005—14 per cent by Labor; six per cent by the Liberal-National party, and yet they brag about that. But, when you break down their six per cent, how do they get to the six per cent? Guess how much of the six per cent came from Labor's Renewable Energy Target that they've tried to abolish time after time? In fact, the member for Hume, the minister, got preselected and then elected to his seat on an anti-wind-farm, anti-RET agenda. So, of their six per cent, guess how much came from Labor's Renewable Energy Target? It's five point seven percentage points—5.7 percentage points. And guess where the rest came from? The rest came from the first recession in 30 years, last year—the one that the minister was bragging about because it took cars off the road. He was actually using it as a bragging point! So, of their six per cent, 5.7 percentage points were from Labor's RET and the rest were from dropping us into a recession. I can't believe this minister can look at himself in the mirror, quite frankly, let alone come into this chamber and make the claims that he's about to make.
Their second claim will be that, in 2020, emissions under them were 100 million tonnes lower than they were under Labor. The truth is that, in 2013, emissions in 2020 were projected to be 656 million tonnes. The actual outcome was 499 million tonnes. So, on the face of it, the minister can make that claim. But those projections were revised down every year, basically, of the last decade—in 2016, 559 million; in 2017, 551 million; in 2018, 540 million; in 2019, 534 million. What caused these reductions in the projections of how much our economy would emit? Was it their strong action on climate change? Was it their stable and consistent energy policy? No. The government's own documents say these downward emissions projections were caused by the impact of the drought on the farming sector, by the decline of manufacturing emissions—because they closed the automotive industry—and by Labor's RET. So the three reasons emissions were 100 million tonnes lower are that there was a drought; they killed the car industry, destroying 50,000 jobs; and Labor's RET. That's the truth about all the numbers that the minister for emissions will throw at us in this debate.
The third claim—and the most offensive one, quite frankly, because the rest is history—and the worst one is that they will meet and beat their 28 per cent reduction target by 2030. Well, their own documents contradict that. Their own documents predict that, by 2030, emissions will only be 23 per cent lower than in 2005—only 23 per cent. So their own documents are surrender documents. Their own documents surrender and say they will not meet the target. The worst will be the 'technology, not taxes' line from the minister. Minister, unless you've got a money tree, the only way you promote technology is by creating incentives and subsidies. To pay for it, the government has to do what? It has to use taxes.
This is a government that is totally bereft on climate change. This is a government that is betraying not only future generations but the current generation by denying us the economic opportunities that are associated with taking strong action on climate change. Those on this side of the parliament, the Labor side, are committed to net zero emissions by 2050. We'll have strong medium-term policies announced before the next election and, more importantly, we've got a track record, when in government, of taking action on climate change, seizing the economic opportunities that go with it and not betraying future generations like those on the opposite side. They talk about family values, but they're undermining the Australian family as we speak.
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (16:09): It's a pleasure to speak on this motion moved by the member for Shortland. He is right to say that the report that came out at 6 pm last night is an important report. There is no doubt about that. It underscores the point that countries around the world, including Australia, need to do their bit to bring down emissions. But it's going to require a globally coordinated effort to do that. Our consistent position has been that the way to ensure we have falling emissions and a strong economy at the same time is through technology, not taxes.
Importantly, that is not the member for Shortland's approach. He was a key architect of Labor's carbon tax. In fact, he claimed credit for it in the speech he gave a moment ago. It was that carbon tax that saw the jobs of hardworking Australians destroyed, including at the aluminium smelter.
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr TAYLOR: So they're taking ownership of it—I'll take the interjection—including the aluminium smelter at Kurri Kurri in the Hunter Valley, not far from the member's electorate. And now, through our investment in Kurri Kurri, we are re-establishing an industrial site at exactly the place where they took the jobs out.
The member for Shortland goes further than that. One day, before I was about to give an interview on ABC regional radio, they were interviewing the member for Shortland. He was asked whether the Labor policy was a carbon tax. He said it was 'an implicit carbon tax', a sneaky carbon tax—and we know, one way or another, that that is the policy he supports. In fact, the president of the CFMEU's New South Wales energy and northern mining division said of the member for Shortland that 'he's running around the countryside supporting the Greens view of life'. Hear, hear! I don't often agree with the CFMEU, but I sure do agree with them on this one.
The latest IPCC report confirms the need for global action. Meeting these challenges is a shared responsibility, and we are playing our part. We met, and beat, our 2020 targets. We did that at the same time as we were building the largest LNG export sector in the world. We are reducing emissions in Asia. We accept the fact that that makes it harder for us. Indeed, as the member for Shortland pointed out, when Labor left government, their forecast of our emissions for last year were over 100 million tonnes higher than we actually achieved. Conveniently, he completely ignored the role of small-scale solar.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
Mr TAYLOR: I'll take that interjection. He needs to really understand the sector before he makes these sorts of interjections. But what do we hear from those opposite on this issue? A failure to acknowledge Australia's achievements. They'll talk Australia down at every opportunity they get. They haven't had much to say about the vandalism we saw this morning—defacing iconic public buildings. That is not the way to do it; technology is the pathway to reducing emissions. They have no 2030 target, they have no plan, and there is nothing but deafening silence on these critical issues from those opposite. They come in here and talk about jobs. Meanwhile, they have voted against the expansion of ARENA for the Technology Investment Roadmap—$80 billion of combined public and private sector investment and 160,000 jobs. For the Labor Party, there are only their preferred ways to bring down emissions. It's ideological. When it comes to the practical questions of bringing emissions down, they will pick the ways they prefer.
Fortunately, the member for Shortland has already stolen my thunder with Australia's extraordinary performance on reduction of emissions; he acknowledges that we've reduced emissions by 20 per cent since 2005 and that our achievements include reducing emissions by 100 million tonnes lower than those opposite forecast. He failed to acknowledge, though, that that is a performance that beats Canada, New Zealand, the United States, Japan and the OECD. In the electricity sector in particular, in the NEM, we've seen very sharp reductions, including 5.6 per cent in the last year alone.
Ms Butler interjecting—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): The member for Griffith and the member for Shortland!
Mr TAYLOR: That's 7,000 megawatts in the last year alone on new renewables, dominated by small-scale solar, and we have the highest amount of those installations in the world.
Those opposite like to crow about their achievements when they were last in government. Their greatest achievement was the carbon tax. But let me tell you: we've provided 7,000 megawatts in renewables in one year, which is more than the entire time when Labor were in government. Indeed, the year before, it was 6,300 megawatts in a single year, which is, again, more than the entire time that Labor were in government. We've deployed renewables eight times faster than the global per person average and four times faster than Europe or the US. We are getting on with the job.
When I was a teenager, the first cassette I ever bought was Billy Joel's Greatest Hits. It included great songs, like 'Piano Man'. But the best stuff I've seen lately isn't Billy Joel's Greatest Hits; it's Joel's greatest hits! Just across Lake Macquarie from the member for Shortland he's getting missiles on a daily basis. He said recently:
… after 14 years of trying, the Labor Party has made not one contribution to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in this country.
The member for Hunter doesn't agree with the member for Shortland's rendition of the world, but he goes further than that. Again, across Lake Macquarie, he sent a little missile. The member for Hunter has rightly pointed out that the member for McMahon's decision to vote against the government's ARENA expansion is just plain 'stupid policy and stupid politics'. Labor doesn't listen to him, though. Last month on 2GB, the member for Hunter said:
… Labor should just back whatever the government puts on the table. To do otherwise is to suggest we are not genuinely committed to action on climate change. And we've got to back the things the government is prepared to support, from renewables right through to carbon capture and storage.
But, again, sadly and tragically, Labor didn't listen. So we get more hits from Joel! In May, he warned that the 'excessive progressives think they can afford to cut the coalminers loose and still win'. But, again, they didn't listen.
The member for McMahon and the member for Shortland think that they know best. The member for McMahon has bragged about being the key architect of Labor's failed climate policies that they took to the last election. He, of course, has never seen a tax he didn't like. I suspect the member for Shortland hasn't seen a tax he didn't like. The member for McMahon loved Labor's original carbon tax. When he was Treasurer, it got to the highest level it had ever got to. He was the Treasurer when that happened. You name it; he'll tax it, and that includes carbon. The difference is, on this side of the place, we're for technology, not taxes.
You only need to look at their efforts in the last few months to see all of this in action. We've seen their opposition to technologies they don't like. One of them, of course, is carbon capture and storage. The member for Hunter has pointed out that those on his side need to start backing this technology. Indeed, he had to write an AFR opinion editorial—
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Shortland is warned.
Mr TAYLOR: He had to write an op-ed to correct the incorrect views of those on his side of this place. No doubt talking to the member for Shortland, he said, 'To be taken seriously, climate change activists need to jettison their fundamentalism.' But it's not just the member for Hunter; it's also the former Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, who said, 'The role of CCS is being promoted by the IEA, the United Nations and the Biden administration.' And yet, sadly, Labor votes against it. We are getting on with the job—practical action that Australians can be proud of.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (16:19): Today has certainly been a very difficult day for Australians because we have been, as we have been for a very long time, bearing the twin crises: the COVID crisis and the climate crisis. People from across my electorate and from across this country have a deep anxiety inside them that has been really coming through today in the wake of a couple of things. In the COVID crisis, it's been in the wake of the member for Dawson standing up in this chamber and disgracing this House by claiming that masks don't work and that lockdowns don't work. In the climate crisis, of course, last night we had the IPCC report in relation to climate change. It's been very disappointing that the government have been dodging, weaving and ducking in trying to avoid all responsibility in climate change as they do with every issue. It has not been surprising that the same man who was in this place claiming that masks don't work and that lockdowns don't work is the man who has been running conspiracy theories that the climate change data of the Bureau of Meteorology has somehow been faked. He uses social media to promote this disinformation and of course the government, led by the Prime Minister, gives these deliberate acts of disinformation tacit endorsement by turning the other cheek, by looking away and by refusing to condemn these words.
When it comes to the climate crisis, ideas that somehow climate change is made up, that it's not true, are dangerous. They're dangerous because they are a disincentive to real action. Fortunately for all of us, we have, against this very fringe mentality that is, as I said, given tacit endorsement by the leadership of the government who do not openly condemn these sorts of disinformation programs, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their report from last night. That report makes very clear the significance of the challenge that the world is facing in relation to climate change. It pulls no punches. It says Australian land areas have warmed by around 1.4 degrees Celsius. It says that annual temperature changes have emerged above natural variability in all land regions. It says heat extremes have increased, cold extremes have decreased and these trends are projected to continue. It says that the frequency of extreme fire weather days has increased and the fire season has become longer since 1950 at many locations across Australasia. It says that the intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather events are projected to increase throughout Australia and New Zealand. Heavy rainfall and river floods are projected to increase and an increase in marine heatwaves and ocean acidity has been observed and is projected. Sandstorms and dust storms are projected to increase throughout Australia.
There is much more in this sobering report, and it's this report that is really giving voice today to the fears of Australians, the fears that this country lacks the leadership it needs to take real action on climate change at home and to take real leadership on the international stage. It's giving voice to the fears about what sorts of lives our families will have, we ourselves will have and our fellow Australians will have in the mid-2030s, if we hit 1.5 degrees across the world. People are genuinely afraid, and what they're looking for from this government is leadership. But what they are not getting from this government is leadership. They're getting ducking, weaving and dodging, and we just saw it again from the minister who had been so ably demolished by the shadow minister, the member for Shortland, in advance. I thank the member for Shortland for a terrific speech that I'm sure will resonate across Australia. We know that people have this fear, and it's a legitimate fear. It's a legitimate fear because we are going through these massive crises at the moment and we do have a leadership vacuum at the top of our country. What can we do about it? It's very clear to me: we need and we deserve a government that will take real action on the COVID pandemic—timely, thoughtful, considered, rapid action—and a government that will take real action on climate change. You've heard from Labor multiple policies on climate change. We will win the economic argument and we will bring people with us because, at the end of the day, this is a massive crisis and Australia deserves a government that will lead.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (16:24): I always enjoy coming to a debate led by the member for Shortland. The member for Shortland is always focused and he's passionate and he's disassociated from reality—and he's also wrong. These are the challenges for the member for Shortland.
The facts are these. We have reduced emissions by 20 per cent. That is what we have done. If you compare that with other countries, you see that that is significant and substantial compared to the noisemakers. If you compare it to New Zealand, for example, which has excluded agriculture from its numbers, we are doing better than New Zealand. We're doing better than the US, South Korea, Japan, Canada—the numbers keep racking up.
We took a proposal to the Australian people at the last election. We made commitments to 2030, and we are delivering on those commitments. The phrase 'technology, not taxes' is not just a line. I met with Chevron in recent days. Their Gorgon CCS unit out in the north-west is just past five million tonnes. That sounds pretty successful to me. That is what success looks like—companies out there investing their hard earned and getting a result.
The MPI talks about inaction on job creation. I'm not sure where those opposite have been, but in my portfolio the results have been magnificent, absolutely magnificent. They have gone from roughly 240,000 Australians directly employed to 279,000 directly employed, at the last set of numbers. Unemployment is under five per cent. This is what success looks like. This is a sector which is doing its part, which is carrying the Australian economy, and it has made some very significant commitments and sacrifices to make that happen during the COVID pandemic. Like any number of Australians, those in the resources sector have been away from their families for many weeks, for many months—for long periods of time—because it was necessary. Those results have resulted in a record set of Australian exports, at $310 billion for the last financial year, and forecasts of $344 billion for the next financial year because of projects like Narrabri, over 900 jobs expected; the Barossa announcement up in the Darwin LNG life extension, over 600 jobs; Scarborough, WA, 3,200 jobs; and the Beetaloo basin, where we expect more than 6,000 jobs to be created over the next 20 years as we bring that gas basin online. We have a strategic plan worth over $220 million to make sure that that happens.
However, there are some challenges. One of those is that Environment Centre NT has applied to the Federal Court, seeking a review of my decision to prescribe the Beetaloo Basin Cooperative Drilling Program and award grants under the program. Environment Centre NT is supported by the Environmental Defenders Office. Given this is a matter before the courts, I won't be making comments on that specifically. However, in general terms, this is the format that those people use. When I say 'those people', I mean those who are out there using environmental or green lawfare to stop legitimate projects in this country that help deliver jobs and help deliver stronger economies, particularly in areas like the Northern Territory.
If we look at what those opposite are putting forward, former senator Nigel Scullion, who left the Senate at the last election, very famously said in the Nationals party room before the election: 'Get off the twitterer.' 'Get off the twitterer,' was Mr Scullion's comment, 'Get out to the pubs, get out to the coffee shops, get out to small business and talk to real people.' I say to the former senator: unfortunately, it's on the 'twitterer' where you find Labor's policies. Labor's election commitments at the last election included an announcement around a $14 million funding package for—guess who—the Environmental Defenders Office. Those opposite will sit there and sometimes say they support the resources sector and other times say something different, whether they're in Melbourne or Moranbah. It is Moranbah, not Mooranbah, as was outlined by the Leader of the Opposition a couple of days ago. So $14 million was the commitment from those opposite to support individuals who want to stop the government's policies to deliver jobs. That is what they put forward. That is the proposition from those opposite supporting the Environmental Defenders Office. What's next? They'll be out supporting those individuals who were vandalising Australia's Parliament House this morning. This is their policy and this is what's been put forward by those opposite.
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (16:30): I rise today to reiterate the need for strong action on climate change. My electorate has been hit hard by concurrent natural disasters for years now. People across Eden-Monaro will never forget the bushfires that devastated our region. Many communities across the electorate are still recovering and rebuilding, all while trying to process the mental toll of the bushfires and cope with the uncertainty of the pandemic.
But, for us, bushfires aren't the only natural disaster to hit Eden-Monaro. We had prolonged drought, bushfires, floods and then a pandemic hit our communities. According to the data from our six local council areas, we've been impacted by 28 declared natural disasters in the last three years alone. During that time we have faced more than 18 major floods and at least six bushfire events, which culminated in over a million hectares of land being burnt across the electorate in the Black Summer fires. Every few months over the last three years, constituents in parts of my electorate had to stop whatever they were doing and prepare for the worst. They've had to sandbag properties, evacuate themselves and evacuate livestock, often while having to make painful decisions during evacuations about what to save and what to leave.
Having read the IPCC report, I worry about what more is to come if more action isn't taken. It is clear—heat extremes have increased in Australia, and the intensity, frequency and duration of extreme weather events are projected to increase. We've battled through a terrifying summer of bushfires, and I can't imagine—and I don't want to imagine—how we would get through a more intense or longer bushfire period. We need to do more to prevent this from happening again. It's not good enough to stand at the lectern and laugh about a resources sector when people are really struggling in their day-to-day lives because of these events currently happening. We have had eight years of inaction by this government. It's past time that this government started delivering.
Stabilising the climate requires rapid and sustained reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reaching net zero emissions. All our states and territories and all leading business, industry and agricultural groups are on the same page, committing to at least net zero emissions by 2050. But the Morrison government is refusing, even at the bare minimum, to do that. We've got a prime minister who refuses to see what's obvious to so many across this country and so many people across my electorate. We've got a government so divided on the basic science of climate change that it's unable to see that the disaster unfolding in front of us could also be Australia's job opportunity. The Morrison government is failing to see all the reasons why action on climate change must start now. Enough flying blind; it's time to open your eyes and see what's right in front of you.
The world is going to move rapidly towards renewable energy. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Australia to jump ahead of the pack, with Australian renewable energy made by our workers and our technology here at home exported to a world hungry with demand. By investing in renewables we could create thousands of jobs in growing industries and more jobs in existing industries, and make power cheaper for homes and businesses. Good climate policy is good jobs policy. Good climate policy benefits individuals, families, businesses and communities. Good climate policy is needed for a prosperous Australia.
We've already lost 10 years to coalition scare campaigns against climate action, and we can't afford to lose another 10 years. The climate wars need to end. And this government's term is rapidly coming to an end. Australia cannot afford to waste any more time. My communities cannot afford what happens when we don't act. There is a couple in my electorate who, after 20 months, are still living in a caravan, and they're not the only ones. They're in their 80s. Jim and Enid are at their wit's end. They're in their 80s and they have said that they have never seen things so bad, that the bushfires they experienced were horrendous. They've seen bushfires before, and they have said directly that this is a result of climate change. The eight floods they endured after those bushfires 20 months ago are the result of climate change.We need action and we need it now. We need it for our communities and we need it for jobs.
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (16:35): It's a privilege to be able to speak on this motion, which is on one of the most significant challenges that we face not just as a country but as a global community. The challenges of climate change are an existential threat to the health and viability of people and of the planet overall. But it is important to make sure that we focus on what it is we can do in making sure that we confront that challenge.
There is no community that is unaffected—even the federal electorate of Goldstein. Even though we are only 55 square kilometres in the metropolitan part of Melbourne, we face every day the challenges of the impact of sea levels and what those do to coastal erosion and the importance of our viable and most beautiful Port Phillip. We have challenges, like many communities do, around the urban heat island effect and the importance of developing and investing in urban canopy to make our community more resilient against the challenges of a changing climate and what that means for water management. We see that locally in the efforts being made by councils in areas from waste reduction through to the investment in our local flora, fauna and parkland.
And, of course, this is of utmost importance as an issue that reminds us of the importance of acting purposefully and with focus. The Prime Minister has said today, rightly, in the context of COVID-19, that there is no solution that is based on Australia just protecting itself and then not taking concern for other countries and what they do, both in aid and supporting them but also in asking them to accept their responsibility too. Australia must accept our responsibility; responsibility belongs at home. The principle of stewardship starts by people taking responsibility. It happens in terms of people taking responsibility for getting themselves vaccinated and their community getting vaccinated, when it comes to COVID-19, and also in cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the context of Australia as well as other countries who seek to do so. We should encourage them to do so.
But, as responsible legislators, we have to make choices. We have to make choices understanding the urgency and the challenges that we face, and make sure that we have a plan that has integrity. We often get told, 'We just want Australia to commit to net zero.' The fact of the matter is that, under the Abbott government, we committed to net zero in the second half of this century. That was done in the Abbott government. What we are seeking to do as a government—and what we should do—is develop a plan with integrity to deliver that.
I talk to constituents regularly about this important issue. Periodically I hold listening posts, as many members no doubt do throughout their communities. I held one in Highett a few months ago. A young woman came to talk to me about the importance of climate change and the impacts she saw for herself and for her family. Once we got through the issues that she wanted to raise, I said, 'Okay, what is it that you're looking to do about it?' She had very strong opinions on what the government was doing—and we're doing a lot; I'll get to that. I asked her what she wanted, and her solution was a carbon tax—just like Labor and the Greens introduced when they were in coalition previously. I made it clear that one of the most important things to drive climate change policy is to make sure that it's sustainable policy—that it not be introduced on the basis of a lie and that it not be done against the will of the Australia people.
What we as a government are seeking to do is drive reform that takes the Australian people with us. That's so the next generation of Australians don't see climate change just as a threat but as an opportunity where we get to build the future of this country and to build a sustainable economic future for this country. That's why the focus is squarely on what we can do around technological development and deployment to build the future of Australia. That's so we're not driving an agenda—as Labor, the Greens and other political parties may want to do—which is a trade-off between the economy and the environment. It's about how we can use the economy and the environment to enhance and build potential for the future of Australia.
That's why the technology road map has been so critically important. What it focuses on is what we can actually do to cut emissions and create jobs—where we can invest resources to build job opportunities for the future of Australia while also cutting our greenhouse gas emissions. One of the best things about it is that we're focused on a technology-neutral way so that we can harness the power of science and technology to build that future. Whether it's investment in hydrogen or, of course, in hydroelectric power, solar PV cells, battery technology or technology that's still experimental and still needs time to mature, we are prepared to back it every step of the way, because that is how you deliver sustainable policy and that is how you take the Australian people with you.
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:40): If the fires in Greece, the heatwaves in Washington state, the floods in Germany and the breaking apart of icebergs weren't enough, I could understand the fear and the sense of hopelessness that the latest IPCC report has triggered in people. To the grandparents who are worried about the world they're leaving their grandkids, to the new parents or those thinking of being parents who are worried about what this means for the future of their kids, through to the youngest people themselves, who, with the clarity of children, can see what's ahead of them and can't fathom the lack of action to deal with it, I want to say that, yes, it's scary, but it isn't hopeless.
The facts, not open to dispute or opinions or personal views, written by 234 scientists, backed by 14,000 pieces of peer-reviewed research and then approved by 195 countries, including Australia, are breathtaking. They are proof that Australia has already warmed by around 1.4 degrees Celsius and could be just 10 years away from heating by more than 1.5 degrees. This is the level of warming that the world agreed in 2015 we would try to avoid. It is the level Australia agreed to take action to prevent, yet the failure of our actions has seen us ranked last among 200 countries.
The consequence of the current and future warming, described as code red by the United Nations, is dire. The frequency of extreme fire weather days has increased and fire seasons are longer. Now, that's not news in the Blue Mountains or the Hawkesbury. The intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather events are projected to increase, as are heat extremes, heavy rainfall and river floods, all of which have the potential to wreak havoc on the hills and the lowlands that I represent. Marine heatwaves are already happening and increasing. Snow cover and depth are decreasing and are projected to decrease further. There are sandstorms, dust storms and drought. How predictable but how soul destroying it is to hear the spin from the Morrison government on these facts and its boasting about its meagre efforts.
I was struck by the words of a climate scientist from the University of Melbourne, former scientific adviser to the German government's climate negotiators and one of the IPCC report authors, Dr Malte Meinshausen, who said:
I think everybody in the international community would laugh if they would hear that Australia thinks they're doing enough. Of course they're not doing enough …
They neither have upped their targets for 2030 nor have they put a net zero target onto the table. They are not invited to many of the talks where international climate diplomacy is now going on because they are seen—and rightly so—as a laggard.
The IPCC report is another clear sign that the rest of the world is going to move rapidly ahead toward renewable energy, and we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to jump ahead of the pack. Australia's achievements to date, including in solar on rooftops, is thanks to state government priorities. Our renewable energy, made by our workers, and our technology here at home could be exported to a world that we know is hungry with demand. The world's climate emergency is our jobs opportunity. By investing in renewables, we can create thousands of good-paying jobs and growing industries, making power cheaper for homes and businesses. But we have a government divided, even on the basic science of climate change, let alone able to deliver the opportunities that are before us.
Australians deserve better than a government that tries to spin its way through the rest of the world as the rest of the world decarbonises. We have to act now. This needs tangible actions from a government with a track record on acting, and, of course, that means it needs a Labor government. We need things like offshore wind power, hydrogen and green steel. We need to use the lithium and the rare earths that we have, not just for export but to have our own battery-manufacturing powerhouse. We need to train young Australians for the new energy jobs of the future. We need good policy for electric vehicles so that we can give families more affordable choices. We need to get the grid rewired so that the renewable energy can get from where it is to where it needs to be. And we need things like community batteries—we want to see a start of 400 across the country—so that we can really optimise that solar energy we have. I want to say to young people that there is hope. There are two things: there is hope for the future of the world, and it's not too late—but only if we act now. (Time expired)
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:45): I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on this matter of public importance, and I start by commending the contribution of the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. In fact in question time, in his answer to my question, he reminded me of the visit we made together to the Tonsley precinct in my home city of Adelaide. It's a project that the Commonwealth is investing in with Australian gas networks and other industry partners to look at blending hydrogen into the natural gas network in the surrounding suburbs of that precinct—a very practical example of the sorts of things this government is investing in to progress technological solutions to the challenges of emissions reductions that ensure we also have a bright economic future to look forward to as we undertake this transition to decarbonise our economy in an economically responsible way.
I want to touch on a very exciting announcement that the government made recently that I was quite closely involved in lobbying for—again, it's in my home state—which is the HILT CRC. Minister Porter announced it was successful in receiving a little over $40 million in funding from the Commonwealth government—HILT CRC being the Heavy Industry Low-carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre. It's a project put forward with lead partners including Adelaide university; industry partners such as Fortescue, Alcoa and Roy Hill; and, of course, other eminent institutions like the CSIRO.
A huge number of industry partners are working together on one of our major challenges, which is how we're going to find a future pathway for our heavy industries that, at the moment, are very high emitters—of course, they must exist into the future—and how we crack the code of understanding how we can continue to have those industries, particularly the steel industry, whilst pursuing technological solutions to the high CO2 intensity of those sectors. There is no future without industries like steel, like aluminium and like cement. We accept these are high-emitting sectors, and we need technological and scientific solutions to ensure we can continue to produce steel, aluminium and cement—but, of course, hopefully in a way that reduces their CO2 footprint.
This is actually something that presents an enormous opportunity for this country. Green steel is an example. Through the HILT CRC developing commercial technologies to allow us to produce green steel, it could see an enormous job creation opportunity right here in this country. We all know we've got the raw material, we all know we're an enormous producer and exporter of iron ore, but can we, in fact, have a green steel export industry right here in Australia? Of course, green steel is going to involve the processing of iron ore in situ, meaning here in continental Australia.
The HILT CRC is a great example of us investing in finding technological solutions that not only address the challenges of needing to reduce our CO2 emissions but grow our economy in the process and recognise that the future does involve solving these problems. But, rather than exporting jobs out of this country and going it alone by setting targets that will only see industry leave this country to go other countries that don't put in place the same punitive measures—and, perversely, see an increase in CO2 emissions globally—it doesn't matter what CO2 emissions are in a particular country, a particular state; it matters what they are planet wide—we need to do our fair share as a country. We need to make sure that we're not doing things that are unnecessarily and pointlessly punitive to the Australian economy and, perversely, have no impact or benefit whatsoever in reducing the net CO2 emissions of the planet. So solving these sorts of challenges and investing in the other sorts of things that we are doing as a government are going to see that dual benefit of reducing emissions but also protecting jobs in our economy and growing jobs in our economy.
In my home state of South Australia we're doing important things in this regard, like the interconnector with New South Wales. That is going to see an enormous increase in the already high investment in renewable energy generation in South Australia because we will have export markets to other states through investing in that infrastructure. These are the practical things that we're doing as a government, and they are going to pay much more significant dividends than any of the rhetoric that we hear in this chamber from those opposite, which is not backed up by any concrete plans to achieve anything whatsoever.
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (16:50): In September 2019 the Prime Minister warned against fuelling needless anxiety among Australian children about the danger of climate change. He said:
And I think it's important that we give them … confidence that they will not only have a wonderful country and pristine environment to live in but they'll also have an economy they can live in as well.
He then said:
… the worst thing I would impose on any child is needless anxiety—
on any Australian child, and yet Australian children were then rescued by the Navy off the beaches of Mallacoota in Black Summer in some of the worst bushfires, which had driven them out of their own town. Australian children were hospitalised in record numbers because of asthma and respiratory illness and heat stroke as a result of those environmental conditions from that same Black Summer. It is Australian children who have had to sue their own government to prove that they are owed a duty of care. They sued the Morrison government, and they won.
In May the Federal Court found there was a new duty, a duty it has never found before, that the environment minister owes a duty of care to Australian young people not to cause them physical harm in the form of personal injury from climate change. The court warned in its written judgement:
It is difficult to characterise in a single phrase the devastation that the plausible evidence presented in this proceeding forecasts for the Children … The physical environment will be harsher, far more extreme and devastatingly brutal when angry. As for the human experience—quality of life, opportunities to partake in nature’s treasures, the capacity to grow and prosper—all will be greatly diminished. Lives will be cut short. Trauma will be far more common and good health harder to hold and maintain. None of this will be the fault of nature itself. It will largely be inflicted by the inaction of this generation of adults, in what might fairly be described as the greatest inter-generational injustice ever inflicted by one generation of humans upon the next.
To say that children are vulnerable is to vastly underestimate their predicament. Clearly there are worse things that a PM can impose than needless anxiety, because, after all of that, and after today's IPCC report, the Prime Minister has chosen to dig in—the Prime Minister who always talks about the cost of others, but never talks about the cost of his own inaction, of his own failure to act on climate change domestically, not just in dealing with extreme weather events but also in the cost of tariffs that other countries are now considering imposing upon us.
Our constituents are crying out for this parliament to act. Constituents like John and Chris and Clive have already written to me today about the IPCC report urging us to act. My high-school geography teacher, Mr Fitz, who has now sadly passed away, used to teach me to think globally but act locally. We need to back technologies like offshore wind, hydrogen, green steel and others not only to get the energy we need to keep the lights on but to create a jobs boom in new industries, in local supply chains and in export. In Lilley we have a proud local manufacturing history that we could reinvigorate with Labor's policies like Rewiring the Nation and Power to the People. The cost of climate change will come to every Australian neighbourhood, if it hasn't already.
I said in my first speech that many big debates are not right versus left. They are short term versus long term, and we cannot prioritise one at the expense of the other—even at a time when the news cycle, the electoral cycle or the bills coming in all draw us to short termism. It must never be beyond us in this place to get the long term right too. But for eight long years it has been beyond this place to get the long term right. Under the Morrison government, it seems well beyond us and, Prime Minister, that is on your watch. That is your complacency. That is your failure to pull the levers of power because of your party room. Perhaps the scariest thing of all is your delusion that you are doing an adequate job. Now you are the cause of our anxiety!
Ms LIU (Chisholm) (16:55): Yesterday's IPCC report confirms one thing, and that is the importance of a coordinated global effort to reduce emissions. The report bluntly provided an update on the latest physical science on climate change and the likely trajectory of global warming. There are many challenges, and overcoming these challenges is a shared responsibility.
Australia is doing its bit. We have a strong 2030 target and we are going to beat it. This is in contrast to many other nations. This government is committed to the Paris agreement and its goals. I want to see Australia achieving net zero emissions as soon as possible and I also want to see it done before 2050. We had a target for emissions in 2020 and we beat that target by 459 million tonnes. We are now on track to beat our 2030 Paris emissions target as well.
As a nation, between 2005 and 2019 our emissions fell faster than many comparable countries, including Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Korea and the United States. Unfortunately, more than half of G20 nations saw their emissions rise. Meanwhile, Labor has walked away from their 2030 target. They have walked away from the Paris agreement. The opposition has no plan, no policies and no idea: that is clear. We have practical plans; they have nothing. Last week we saw Labor's Senate team vote against the technology investment road map. They voted against technology. We all know that Labor is dying to add a big fat tax to every Australian's weekly bill. Of course, if it's not technology it's taxes.
In sharp contrast, this government is backing the next generation of technology that will deliver lower emissions and lower costs and create more jobs for Australians. We are backing Australian ingenuity and innovation, not taxing Australians more. This government is delivering lower emissions by investing $20 billion in new energy technology by 2030, driving $80 billion of total public and private investment over the decade. We plan to support 160,000 new jobs. The way the Morrison government is doing this is by reducing emissions without destroying jobs, taxing hardworking Australians or adding any new costs on households, businesses and industry.
I am so proud to be part of a government that has achieved so much on this issue. Our record is one of delivering. We beat our Kyoto-era targets by 459 million tonnes and we are going to beat our Paris targets too. Latest data shows that our emissions are 20 per cent lower than 2005 levels and emissions are lower than in any year under the previous Labor government. What a disappointing record from those opposite! In 2020 a record seven gigawatts of new renewable energy capacity was installed in Australia. That is more renewables in one year under the Morrison government than under the whole period of the previous Labor government. Again, what a disappointing record.
When it comes to emissions reduction, our record is one of delivery and achievement that Australians can be proud of. For example, as a nation we now have the highest solar PV capacity installed per person in the world. The Morrison government's technology led approach to reducing emissions will see Australia continue to play its part in the global effort to combat climate change, without compromising our economy or jobs. We deliver when it comes to emissions reduction; Labor just taxes hardworking Australians.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The discussion has concluded.
BILLS
Customs Amendment (2022 Harmonized System Changes) 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 that:
(1) international trade will be crucial to Australia's post COVID-19 economic recovery; and
(2) the Government's inability to secure a variety of vaccines has left Australians dangerously vulnerable—particularly those in trade exposed industries".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (17:00): In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable member for Paterson on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.
The SPEAKER: The matter before the House is the motion moved by the honourable member for Paterson on a deferred division from earlier in the day. The question is that the motion be disagreed to.
The House divided. [17:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Third Reading
Ms LANDRY (Capricornia—Assistant Minister for Children and Families and Assistant Minister for Northern Australia) (17:09): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021
Consideration of Senate Message
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the amendments be agreed to.
The SPEAKER (17:10): I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the honourable assistant minister for regional development on which a division was called for and deferred. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.
The House divided. [17:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) 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 that the Government:
(1) must stop its ongoing campaign to remove supports for the Australian screen industry; and
(2) has not provided adequate support to Australian small businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to insolvency and distress for business owners, suppliers, and employees".
Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (17:18): It's great to be able to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021 and a number of amendments, which are all of incredible importance to the ongoing nature of the Australian economy in supporting industries throughout this pandemic and as part of the ongoing strength of different sectors in the future. We all know we're going through incredibly challenging times right now, but while we sit in this chamber and are fortunate enough to live in, shall we say, predictable circumstances, even if we have our masks on and the like, the economic impacts of different aspects of COVID-19 are very uneven, depending on the sectors that you work in. Of course, some people have thrived. If you work in a large corporate entity or a large corporate retailer, in some cases business has never been better. In some cases that is true because one of the direct consequences of lockdown is to take people out of small businesses and concentrate them in big corporates. I think we need to be very mindful that many of the measures that are taken in the interest of public health are exacerbating inequality and favouring the few at the expense of the many, particularly small businesses.
But there are other sectors as well—for instance, the many people who work in hospitality in Victoria. And a sector that is often overlooked as part of the broader discussion around hospitality is live events. In the wonderful Goldstein electorate, wedding reception venues have had to cancel bookings due to the different waves of lockdown we've had. Of course, people booking future events has been heavily contingent on their sense of confidence that they're not going to have future lockdowns. People made bookings towards the end of last year and at the start of this year thinking that the long lockdown in Victoria last year was going to be the last. But the ongoing rolling lockdowns that have persisted throughout Victoria this year mean it has become increasingly difficult for anybody to put any money down on the table. No doubt, this will persist because there is a legacy effect and a lag that comes directly from these lockdown events. I know people who have had their wedding cancelled twice. They're not rushing to put down a deposit a third time, because they could be in the same situation—flights are booked, honeymoons are booked, friends' time schedules are booked out and, of course, they organise things like catering, flowers and the like. And a lot of community events have faced similar challenges. In fact, even our own political parties have booked to organise fundraisers or community-spirited events and they've had to be cancelled. I've had that experience myself.
Another sector of the economy that has taken a big hit is live music venues. And people who put on performances in the artistic sector have had their bookings hit too. And, of course, there are sectors in the economy that have traditionally relied upon the movement of people, particularly areas like screen production for television and for the cinema. Part of this bill is to recognise some of the challenges that the different parts of the sector have faced in the contemporary world, not just in the context of COVID-19 but as part of the broader obligations around tax offsets to incentivise production in Australia.
The objective of this bill is to make those measures more favourable for the sector but also more competitive. We don't want Australia to be a desirable destination for production off the back of pseudo-protectionism; we want Australian stories to be told because they reflect the very best of who we are. Sometimes these are stories of hardship, challenge and tragedy. We want that to be done because we believe that we see the best of humanity in Australia and these are stories that are powerful and can move people. The more compelling they are, the more they are produced understanding how to enliven, embolden, entertain and encourage an audience, or even to draw on emotions, the more likely they are to be successful and for the success of our country to be presented on screen to the rest of the world as well as being reflected back to us. We don't want productions made for subsidies alone, for the purposes of production alone; we want productions to be made and stories to be told because they reflect the best of what this nation has to offer and to reflect this back to ourselves as well as to the rest of the world. We want to make sure the policy settings are in place to ensure that those stories are told to advance our national interest.
Another important part of this bill, which might seem minor and technical, particularly in the Treasury portfolio, is schedule 3 of the bill, which deals with clarification of the law to ensure it operates in accordance with the policy intent and makes minor policy changes to correct technical or drafting defects around Parliamentary Counsel and the like. These don't excite or energise anybody but they are as important as having legal instruments in place designed to advance the application of tax law.
The other one is in the area of corporate insolvency reforms, where there are some amendments in terms of making sure that small businesses can operate successfully within an insolvency framework. That insolvency framework is actually something that's very important and that has been very important as a result of COVID-19, where we know a lot of companies have faced challenges around insolvency because of changing business circumstances, obviously as a direct result of government decision-making and the flow-through effect. The Morrison government provided some relief from insolvency provisions throughout last year to make sure that those companies are in the best position to survive and to trade through, particularly in circumstances outside of their control and which have significant impact on themselves but little to do with their own decision-making, including even if they were accepting responsibility.
Before question time, I gave a very abrupt 90-second speech, and I did so to table some important documents. But it actually touches on these issues around liquidation and insolvency, so I think it's important that I have the opportunity to address the substance of those documents in this speech because it gives life to the provisions which this bill, in part, seeks to address—which is to make the point that the strength of our nation comes from strong citizens, communities and, of course, commerce. A poor nation is a weaker nation to defend itself and its interests, in comparison to a strong one. When foreign interests seek to undermine our citizens, communities and commerce, they seek to corrode those strong foundations of our nation.
If an Australian company were maliciously liquidated at the direction of a Chinese state linked entity, this House would be rightly outraged, and should be. This is why I brought to the attention of the House the liquidation of Sargon at the request of Taiping Trustees, as the financing arm of the Chinese state linked enterprise China Taiping. The documents that came into my possession and have been presented to the House appear to indicate that there was a deliberate campaign by China Taiping to trigger the receivership of Sargon. The documents allude that, through the use of a PR firm, stories were deliberately seeded to raise doubts about the sustainability of Sargon, to advance the interests of China Taiping. The allegations include that interest payments on finance were deliberately redirected to present a failure to service debt. Consequently, contractual terms would be triggered, allowing for the appointment of an administrator to then appoint a liquidator of Sargon.
By triggering such terms, ASIC does not scrutinise the claims of the creditors, China Taiping, and whether interest has been paid or not. The allegation, in doing so, has allowed China Taiping to take control of Sargon and its assets, physical and intellectual. Like with many members that table documents, the documents that were presented only inform part of a complex picture. But there is a public benefit, should the allegations be investigated and made out, because the documents include financial statements of Sargon, China Taiping and their trustee implying payments were made and seemingly misdirected to trigger contractual terms. These are serious allegations, of course, and the documents are tabled to ensure scrutiny in the interests of Australian companies that might secure finance from Chinese state inked entities and, should the claims be made out, a warning. The documents were also tabled in the hope that ASIC may review the matter and consider whether the appropriate course of action was taken in that situation. Therefore, I will be writing to ASIC to seek their views and what action they intend to take in the context of the China Taiping-Sargon matter.
Making sure that insolvency provisions work effectively for businesses and uphold interests, including the investment and effort that is made, while not allowing them to be manipulated or utilised by domestic or foreign entities, is of critical importance. So these amendments that are before the House today in this treasury laws amendment bill provide for part of an ongoing discussion to make sure that screen producers and those who invest in the production of the telling of Australian stories get the support that they need and that it's adapted based on changing circumstances, and that insolvency provisions in Australia today work effectively to support small and medium businesses to be able to trade through difficult times and, if they need restructuring, to be able to go on trading so that they can be successful. Nobody wants to see businesses fall over with liabilities. They would rather a situation where they find a pathway to success to continue to go on and employ Australians, but also to be able to make sure that they honour all of their creditors and obligations, and avoid liquidation where possible.
Of course, sadly, we know that in some cases that is not the outcome that is achieved. But surely the objective of the law should be first to give people pathways to adjust and find their way through that challenge, rather than simply seek first to liquidate and become insolvent. I would've thought we would all agree with that, because we want a successful and thriving small business sector, and I'm hoping you're going to nod, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander, to show that, like me, you want to see a successful and thriving small business sector. I'm seeing a nod there. That's good. In fact, I might even get one from the member for Fenner as well if we keep going at this rate—and even from the shadow Treasurer. You never know your luck in the big House!
There are minor technical amendments that deal with issues of tax design to make sure that the law works effectively to advance the interests of Australia. But, of course, nothing will improve the operation of the tax system more than the simplification of the system and the flattening of the rate across the board so that there is no intention of or incentive for people to change their economic behaviour to seek lower tax rates. It's not just that we should do it because it's economically efficient. Sure, that's always a consequence, but we should do it because it's just and because the people who benefit from the complexity of the tax system are the rich, the powerful and those with entrenched interests.
We need to make sure that the tax system reflects not just the challenges of the 21st century, though it must, and we need to do this not just to provide a pathway for the next generation of Australians to thrive and survive—a pathway that encourages them to work, save and invest in their own future for the security of themselves and their families—but to make sure that we don't create a system that entrenches privilege and vested interests and a system where people are able to earn more from the income from and the growth of their assets than from their labour. That is one of the most fundamental principles of a truly liberal society.
When people can earn more and be taxed less because of the holding of assets over income, it rewards capital interests against labour, and that means that you entrench those interests and you break apart what I think of as one of the fundamental principles that has made this nation successful and strong, which is to turn to the next generation and say: 'You get your equal chance too. We will back you to be able to realise your opportunity.' But, in the words of the Prime Minister, rightly, to have a go you've got to get a go. But when you actually entrench interests through law, particularly through a rigged tax system that favours the few at the expense of the many, what you do is turn around to the next generation of Australians and say: 'We will, at your expense, protect those who came before you and are often—particularly because of the way the tax system works—heavily dependent on income tax. We will funnel your cash. While you haven't even had your chance, we will protect those who have had their chance, and have done very well out of it.'
That's one of the reasons it's so important that we provide a pathway for young Australians to secure their own home and that we promote home ownership. Home ownership isn't just about a financial resource, though it is one. It's also about providing a pathway for economic security and independence for the next generation of Australians to support themselves and their families. That's why it is the most important financial decision that Australians make.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (17:33): [by video link] The two industries that the Morrison government has really left behind when it comes to support during this COVID pandemic have been the Australian university sector and our arts and cultural institutions. The latter, of course, is a very important part of Australian society. It is the one that tells the stories of our culture, our history and who we are as Australian people.
In the electorate that I represent, there are many who are very proud to work in Australia's artistic and cultural industries and who are very disappointed by the lack of support that they've received from the Morrison government during this pandemic. Many of them have had their productions cut. Many of them have lost their incomes and their jobs, and are struggling to support their families. And many of them work in the Australian screen industry. This bill goes to changing some of the taxation arrangements for the screen industry in Australia but falls well short of the support that the industry deserves if we're going to have a thriving Australian screen industry, both movies and television, that promotes Australia's artistic achievements, culture, history and heritage.
This is an industry that's undergoing rapid transformation, and that transformation is making it much more competitive and difficult for Australian stories and Australian voices to be heard. We all know about the increase in streaming services that people throughout the world and Australians are tuning into for their entertainment. The majority of that content is coming out of the United States or other big nations like Great Britain, and that means the opportunities for Australian voices and Australian stories to be heard are diminishing. There's been a complete lack of support from the Morrison government to cater for that transformation and to ensure that the necessary support and assistance is there for the Australian screen industry to continue to tell Australian stories and ensure that Australian voices are heard. I've got four kids at home. I don't want them to grow up developing American accents because all they've been given access to through modern-day television and streaming services is American content. But that's the way it's becoming in the living rooms of Australia.
The opportunities for Australian content through streaming services are diminishing. Many of those companies that produce the content we've traditionally seen on Australian TVs are finding it difficult to compete on a mass scale with the larger producers coming out of the United States, and are receiving no support from the Morrison government to continue to tell their stories. While this amendment to our taxation laws does deal with some of those issues, it simply doesn't go far enough and give the industry the support that it deserves. Typical of this government and their approach to screen policy, they've had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards doing something that is positive for the Australian film and television industry. But they've attached many things to this bill that are a negative for the rest of the industry.
We all know that the industry has been campaigning for some time to stop the Morrison government reducing the producer offset. They've been somewhat successful in that campaign. I want to congratulate the industry for not only coming to Canberra earlier in the year but also their concerted campaign to make sure that Australian producers get the support that they deserve to ensure that we have a viable film industry here in Australia. They've been successful in ensuring that that reduction in the producer offset for the Australian film sector, from 40 to 30 per cent, was abandoned. If the Morrison government had bothered to consult the sector in the first place, they would have realised that that proposal was a bad idea. While that's now been dropped, the government continues with other damaging measures.
The increase in the qualifying expenditure threshold for the producer offset is bad news for many smaller and lower-budget films. This means that many of those smaller producers, directors and, indeed, actors who have produced great Australian content and breakthrough films in the past may not be able to under this new regime. The change in the qualification for the offset not only affects production but also affects post-production, because the qualification for that offset to kick in has also been doubled, from $500,000 to $1 million. That means that people who work in post-production will possibly have their careers and their jobs affected by this because they won't qualify for the tax offset in the future, because they don't meet that threshold.
As I mentioned earlier, it's not the bigger production houses that need support from the government; it's the smaller ones. But this particular change to our laws and the change that the government is enshrining in this bill make it more difficult for those smaller producers to get a start, to get a leg-up and to get their big break in the industry. These are the kinds of productions that we want to encourage, to help tell more Australian stories.
Another important part of this bill is the removal of the Gallipoli clause. This clause got its name from the great Australian movie, Gallipoli, because it's the best example of an Australian story which couldn't avoid filming parts of its production overseas. This clause existed so that Australian movies that needed to do some filming overseas could still claim the expenditure against the offset and not be disadvantaged. The removal of this simply makes it harder for Australian stories to be told. The Morrison government hasn't provided any clear rationale for why this change is necessary or for the damage that it will do to the sector. It's a clear cost-saving exercise. It's an austerity measure during a pandemic, when the arts and film industry is on its knees, and it doesn't make sense. It comes at a time when the domestic screen sector is struggling to get traction during the pandemic.
As I mentioned earlier, this isn't a government that's committed to supporting our television and film industry and our arts sector more broadly. I have a couple of independent cinema outlets in the electorate that I represent. The member for Watson and I, late last year, had a meeting with those independent cinemas. They told us about the struggle that they had had over the last 12 months of the pandemic and about the struggle just to get content for them to show to encourage people to come back to the movies. Reforms like this will make it much more difficult for that Australian content to be produced and are a regressive step during a pandemic, when we should be doing all we can to encourage our artistic industries.
The other element of this bill relates to corporate insolvency. Schedule 2 of the bill makes a number of transitional and consequential amendments relating to the government's 2020 reforms for corporate insolvency. Labor is not opposing these reforms. The reforms introduce a new streamlined approach to debt reduction for small businesses and introduce a simplified liquidation pathway for small businesses. We had significant concerns about the rushed nature of these reforms when they passed in 2020. In particular, we were concerned about the reforms that allow easier phoenixing of companies or that allow failing companies to avoid paying employee entitlements. That's why Labor moved an amendment to impose a statutory review on the bill, but that wasn't adopted by parliament.
The legislative changes in this bill make a number of small consequential amendments to ensure that the reforms that passed in December last year operate as intended. Those reforms include ensuring employees can access the Fair Entitlements Guarantee where a firm is wound up following a restructuring process, ensuring prudentially regulated firms can't use the restructuring process, making changes to ensure the process applies appropriately to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporations, and placing protections relating to restructuring practitioners in the primary legislation rather than in the regulations. These are all sensible reforms that will ensure that the bill operates as intended.
But as I mentioned earlier, the government hasn't gone far enough when it comes to ensuring that it is cracking down on phoenixing. It's a terrible indictment on a number of industries in Australia that we still have people who put businesses into liquidation, who owe creditors and who then go and set up under another name with another company and continue to operate, and leave many, including employees, in the lurch. This government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to make changes to our corporations laws to ensure that they are fairer so that we are reducing the impact of phoenixing and people avoiding their obligations to creditors, most notably employees. These reforms don't go far enough, and there is more that the government could do. They could start by adopting some of the reforms that Labor took to the last election.
Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (17:45): It's a pleasure to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021 and particularly to speak in support of the changes to the Australian Screen Production Incentive but also reflect on some of the fine-tuning, as the member for Kingsford Smith has outlined, in relation to corporate insolvencies, particularly for small businesses. I might speak to that first. The laws we introduced in 2020 were designed to ensure that, in the event of insolvency of a small business, we maximised the funds available to creditors. I think all of us in this place, including, I'm sure, the member for Kingsford Smith, who's still on the screen, would agree that we've all seen plenty of times the receivers and the administrators come in to small businesses and charge exorbitant fees that have resulted in the creditors of those businesses getting very little, if anything, out of the proceeds of winding up that business. I fully supported the laws, when we introduced them last year, to ensure that we seek to take some of those costs out of the system and streamline the process so that the creditors who are genuinely owed money by these businesses get as much as possible out of the proceeds of winding up that business and the proceeds don't all finish up in the pockets of the administrators. I think the member for Kingsford Smith was on the committee with me when the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services did the inquiry into impaired loans back in 2014-15 or around then. We saw the activities of some of the banks during the GFC which made it extraordinarily difficult for small businesses to refinance their loans or restructure their loans, when the banks changed their tune in terms of sectors of the economy they wanted to lend to. That actually led to a lot of problems for those businesses and a lot of unnecessary insolvencies.
This debt restructure process goes some way towards assisting to mitigate the impacts of that because it gives the businesses some protection and the time to restructure their debt, restructure their finances and, where they are genuinely a going concern as a result of their ability to restructure, continue in business. That's important because they are leasing a building, nine times out of 10, so the landlords won't miss out. They are employing people, so those people won't lose their jobs and have to find other jobs. If those businesses have to be wound up there may be a bill the government has to pick up through the Fair Entitlements Guarantee for their due entitlements, whether it's for superannuation, long service leave, leave or any of those sorts of things. The notion that we're seeking to streamline the process for small businesses to ensure that we can assist them to restructure both their business and their debt facilities if and when necessary to be able to continue on, if they're a going concern, makes this a critically important piece of legislation. The fact that this bill is tidying up some of those things is a good measure. We all would like to think that we get every piece of legislation perfectly correct when it goes through this place the first time, but sadly that's not always the case, so I fully support these changes.
In relation to the Australian Screen Production Incentive reforms, when I look around our country at some of the wonderful productions that have been made here—not only local productions but also the support and the economic benefits and impact from some of the big-ticket, big-budget movies and features that have been made in Australia over the years—I see the value and the importance of supporting our film and screen industry. I will put on the record that I have an older son who has a very active interest in the film industry and has been involved in a few small projects. We are encouraging small production companies to produce Australian content, whether it's for cinemas, whether it's for the TV screen or whether it's for the streaming services like Netflix, Stan and many others. Those services provide opportunities for Australian producers to tell stories about Australia that show the world what a wonderful country we are but also reflect our culture back to us. For us to be proud of who and what we are as a country is critically important. I think these changes go to the heart of seeking to achieve that.
When I look around the areas where these films or features are produced, I see the economic impact on our local areas: flow-on jobs and money spent at local hardware stores, cafes, restaurants and hotels, which also benefit from encouraging the production of Australian film and television content here. I think that's critically important and it's a part of the equation that maybe we sometimes overlook. We talk about the actors, we talk about the lighting companies, we talk about the sound technicians and we talk about the crew that puts the film together in the post-production houses, which this also touches on. But we forget about all the other stuff outside that that also supports our film industry, or that our film industry supports by going to venues across this country far and wide.
If a film crew goes to a small country town to film a feature or a little documentary, they are going to stay in the local hotel, eat at the local pub or restaurant or go and get coffee at the local cafe. All of those things are critically important and a very good reason why we should encourage the production of more and more Australian content. So I fully support these changes. Silver Wings Films, whose producer, Pamela Collis, and director of photography, Michael Collis, live in my electorate, specialises in Australian and international film production. Hopefully these changes give them even greater incentive to produce here in Australia. Likewise for young film makers like Lark Lee of Lark Lee Films who I met, I think, late last year. She knows my son as well. She's a writer, director and editor and acts in some of the small films that she does. This is an encouragement to people like Lark to get more and more involved in the film industry.
All of these things, when you put them together, create a tremendous incentive for our small-to-medium production companies to grow, develop and produce more Australian content that will benefit not only our actors, writers, producers, cameramen and lighting and technician companies but also the communities where they film these documentaries or features. I commend this bill to the House.
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (17:54): [by video link] This piece of legislation with its very clear name hides the fact that it deals with many different pieces of Treasury law, but there is one area that I want to come to directly in my contribution this afternoon. It's that the federal government doesn't believe in the arts or believe that jobs in the screen industry are real jobs. Typical of this government's approach to policy in this space in general, they've been dragged kicking and screaming towards doing something positive for the television industry and in the process have dudded the rest of the industry. Labor are proud that we have forced the government to amend this bill to remove the reduction in the production offset for the Australian feature film sector, which would have seriously compromised the Australian domestic feature film industry.
There are two positive changes contained in this bill: the producer offset for television productions, which will be increased to 30 per cent; and the removal of the 65-hour cap on the producer offset for television, which will mean the offset can be claimed for an entire television series instead of being limited to just the first few episodes. It is worth noting, though, that these positive measures weren't even the Morrison government's intention and only came about from sustained pressure from Labor and the government's own coalition partners, the Nationals.
The same can't be said for myriad other damaging measures that are featured in this bill. The increase in qualifying expenditure threshold for the producer offset, contained in this bill, is bad news for smaller and lower-budget films. These are small Australian businesses, employing Australians, telling Australian stories, that are going to be negatively affected. Before COVID, many international post-production projects never came to Australia. But, given our world's increasing use of remote workforces, Aussie owned companies have been able to compete and win millions in post-production and visual effects work that can be done remotely, helped significantly by the current post, digital and visual—PDV—effects 30 per cent tax rebate, a rebate that this legislation seeks to change.
This legislation proposes to raise the PDV offset threshold from $500,000 to $1 million. With most post-production and visual effects budgets below $1 million, increasing the threshold offset to that amount risks forfeiting all this work, sending it offshore to cheaper providers. The vast majority of these projects, picked up and undertaken by small and medium-sized businesses here in Australia, are in the hundreds of thousands, not millions. So increasing the tax rebate threshold will leave Australian owned firms unable to compete with their overseas counterparts.
This might not be a sector that we hear much about, but it is a sector that Australia excels at. We have some 400 people in the sector, contributing to massive Hollywood feature films. It's a very impressive export for our small businesses. Here in Western Australia we have an impressive list of post-production companies, including Boogie Monster, in Perth, who are known for their unique ads. Another local business, Double Barrel, started out their company in the spare bedroom of a friend's place in Canning Vale in my electorate of Burt, and they are going from strength to strength, having contributed to Amazon, Warner Bros, Paramount and Disney feature films. Sandbox, in Perth, have delivered myriad post-production services to a huge number of Australian TV shows. KOJO, also based in Perth and working across the country, have contributed to such films as Top End Wedding, The Lucky One, Wolf Creek, No Reservations and Storm Boy.
While these small Perth companies are frenemies, vying for the same work, they're banding together to support their sector, because it's not just one-off contracts that will be hit by this threshold change. If a company like Warner Bros, for example, wanted to get some post-production work done in Australia, that work wouldn't be going to one small company in Australia; it would be divided into smaller contracts, in audiovisual, in editing, in graphics. All of that can amount to contracts totalling over the $500,000 to make Warner Bros eligible for the offset. These companies were all working in the same $500,000 threshold for business planning, expansion, recruitment, training and the like. This change will change the goalposts for them, and businesses looking to use them, overnight. The likelihood of combined expenditure totalling over $1 million here in Australia is negligible.
Aussies have a great reputation for quality work and for putting more than 110 per cent in. Our industry is climbing. So what have we got to lose? Well, Australia will miss out on millions of dollars worth of post-production and visual effects projects every year with growing export revenues, and companies will be cut off overnight. We will lose over 400 full-time and part-time jobs in Australia. We will lose the opportunity to use this investment to cross-subsidise Australian productions and to better tell more Australian stories. We won't be able to grow and expand this important industry that showcases and grows Australian talent. This is a growing industry in Australia that will be destroyed overnight should this legislation changing the threshold go through in full. And it won't just be those involved in postproduction; it will impact across the sector—in front of screen, behind screen, organising, all of the different work that comes into this sector.
Another important and notable part of the bill, though, is the removal of the Gallipoli clause. It's a clause that got its name from the renowned film Gallipoli. Parts of that film, understandably, had to be filmed overseas. This clause exists so that Aussie movies that have to film parts overseas can do so and claim some of that expenditure against the offset. This is of course most important in telling stories of our military history. The government has not provided any clear rationale for these damaging changes that will decimate our film and production industry virtually overnight. Its apparently only rationale is cost-saving, at a time when the screen sector—like most industries in Australia—is still recovering, if not indeed suffering, from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. If the government had truly thought about it, surely they wouldn't be introducing legislation that will destroy Aussie jobs in the blink of an eye, let alone be taking away the ability for us to grow our cultural wealth and share our Australian stories locally and to the world.
I often talk about the synergies in the defence industry and small-business portfolios, my two areas of shadow ministerial responsibility. In this instance, the parallels made me chuckle nervously. You see, in consulting with screen industry players, they told me that most other countries have generous offsets and incentives to bring film production work to their nations. Australia's current one is okay but it could be better. But it's not shocking. The eradication of the post, digital and visual effects tax rebate, however, will put Aussie companies completely on the back foot, competing with overseas companies who are backed by their respective governments. Much as with the Australian defence industry, the Australian government is failing to support our local film and TV industry, leaving them to go it alone while their overseas competitors are supported by their governments. The Aussie film, post-production and visual effects industry punches way above its weight, and we shouldn't be undermining it. We have a great international reputation, and our businesses are growing, but they will be wiped out overnight if this legislation comes into effect. We will be leaving them to fight with one arm tied behind their back against others who are getting support in their home nations.
But, as I said, the government don't care about the arts. They don't believe that there are real jobs in the arts. So we will make sure that the government do consult on this issue, they do hear from the sector and they do evaluate the real-world consequences, be they intended or not. Labor will refer this bill to a Senate committee inquiry to make sure that the industry's voice is heard in respect of these changes. We will also seek to make changes to this legislation to ensure parts of this bill that will have a negative effect on the Aussie screen industry are removed, once again demonstrating that it's not the Liberals but Labor that is on the side of small business.
Mr KHALIL (Wills) (18:03): [by video link] I will be speaking to schedule 1 of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021, as it is this schedule that directly impacts the screen industry, specifically the changes that the government are seeking to make to the producer offset, which will, in our view and in the industry's view more broadly, have very negative impacts on the screen industry. That's why we will be moving amendments to avoid these negative impacts. Specifically the government want to increase the qualifying expenditure threshold for the producer offset for smaller and lower budget films. They want to double the threshold from $500,000 to $1 million, so that effectively only larger productions would be able to access the producer offset, meaning it will be next to impossible to get smaller projects off the ground. Those rejected stories are pretty much as good as gone if this passes through. We're talking largely about the documentary sector. Think of fantastic recent examples like In My Blood It Runs. Australian screen should be more than just Crocodile Dundee and Muriel's Wedding. As great as they are, they're big-budget projects. We need to tell our smaller stories too. They are equally important.
The government are also wanting to increase the threshold for the post-production sector, again doubling it, from half a million dollars to $1 million. This is a direct whack on the post-production sector in Australia. I'm talking about many of the animation and digital effects companies and how many jobs they actually create. We are one of the bigger hitters on post-production and digital effects globally, and yet many Australian companies will no longer be able to access this offset because it's being doubled by the government. The shadow minister, Tony Burke, noted that the Australian Post & VFX Alliance estimates that 400 jobs are at stake if these changes go ahead.
Thirdly, as mentioned by previous speakers, the changes in schedule 1 go to removing what is known as the Gallipoli clause. The clause is called this because it has allowed producers to access the offset if they had to shoot some of their film on location overseas. If we think of a film like Lion, it's an Australian film, but if they couldn't film parts of it in India it would have been a lot less of a film than it actually was. Even a local TV project like Jack Irish, which I'm watching currently, wouldn't be able to shoot in India or the Philippines. Again, we're seeking to change this bill so that the clause can survive. This is because this is part of Australian storytelling—the telling of our multicultural stories.
There are some positives in this bill which we don't seek to change. Originally, the government actually wanted to reduce the producer offset for feature films from 40 to 30 per cent, jacking up the cost of making Australian films by 10 per cent. A film like The Dry would not have been able to be made. Thankfully, the government have backed off. I'm not sure whether they backed off because of the coming together of many actors and producers—they descended on Canberra and all the Liberal and coalition members of parliament were able to take some selfies with them. That may have dissuaded them from making this change. It may also have been our campaign in opposition against this change. Whatever the reason for backing off, it certainly is welcome that they haven't made this hit on the feature film industry.
Yet they still want to make those three changes I have outlined. As a hit on the arts sector during a pandemic it just beggars belief. Is it just a cost-cutting exercise? As a country, we are capable of making some great film and television—and not just the big-screen endeavours like Crocodile Dundee. It's our smaller stories as well. Why is that? It's important to hear our accents and to see and hear our stories on the big and small screens. There's a public good at stake, as mentioned by the shadow minister, and that public good is the production of Australian film and television.
But why is it a public good? I think the answer lies in the fact that telling those Australian stories on the big or small screens, even if they're not a commercial success, resonates with Australians in a way that a big Hollywood production cannot. That's because those stories are our stories. Often, they're not commercially viable, because our market is certainly much smaller than the US or even the UK markets. Therefore, Australian storytelling and content is at a competitive disadvantage. I recall, from when I worked at SBS prior to entering parliament, that the cost of producing an hour of Australian drama was north than half a million dollars if you wanted quality—it's probably more now—whereas our programmers could actually buy content off the shelf, made overseas, for as little as $5,000 for an hour. That's because the larger markets mean greater volume of content which we can't compete with. So, if we don't have these producer offsets and we don't have these types of arrangements that support Australian content, we will lose something precious: the myriad ways of telling Australian stories on the small and big screens.
In my first speech to parliament, back in 2016, I spoke about the importance of arts in our society. A thriving arts sector is the heart and soul of any society. At a time of crisis, like the one we're currently facing, the arts have never been more important in promoting a sense of solidarity and togetherness. I know this because I've experienced it—I think we all have. We've experienced that feeling when a creative work inspires you, moves you, makes you think about something in a different way or, even better, makes you stop thinking altogether and just reminds you to be in the moment. The arts give us something that's almost indescribable—something fundamental to being human. It's the interaction with the creative that makes our souls sing.
Many people will make an economic argument, something along the lines of 'More people go to the NGV than go to the MCG annually.' That's the National Gallery of Victoria and the Melbourne Cricket Ground, for those outside Victoria. It's certainly true that the arts sector generates over $100 billion, but it's so much more than that commercial element of success. The arts have an inherent and intangible value to society that cannot be measured by economic metrics alone. We are all beneficiaries of a thriving arts sector, we are all beneficiaries of the inherent value of the arts and we are all beneficiaries of that which is intangible. The momentary joy in beauty and wonder, the sense of connectedness of our stories told well, a feeling of belonging in seeing our experiences and our lives reflected on our screens are especially so important in these times of lockdown, where our world has shrunk. We are escaping into or seeking some solace in the worlds created on our screens. Those stories that are told about who we are can keep us sane. They become central to our lives as we turn to those stories for both entertainment and enlightenment.
We take for granted the TV shows and movies on Netflix, the music that we can plug into our ears—arts and culture at a click. We consume it every day with little thought, but it is so important to all of us. That's why, frankly, it beggars belief that this coalition government abandoned the arts and entertainment industries in their time of need. I know it shouldn't come as a surprise; they have never been a friend of the arts. They've slashed and starved the sector. They have shown such disinterest in support that in 2019 the government actually abolished the Department of Communications and the Arts and merged it into the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications.
In this crisis, the government have done next to nothing. At the beginning of this pandemic in March 2020, as shows and performances were cancelled en masse across the country, our shadow minister for the arts called for a major dedicated support package for the arts. Labor have continued to call for this since March 2020 and the government has just ignored our calls. We then called for a wage subsidy, which, eventually, the government agreed was a good idea. But when they go to it, they designed it in a way that excluded many arts and entertainment workers. This is a sector that is dominated by casuals, freelancers and short-term contracts with different companies and employers, many of them ineligible for JobKeeper.
Former finance minister Mathias Cormann rubbed salt into the wounds when he said they were missing out on JobKeeper because, 'They can't demonstrate they've had relevant falls in their revenue.' Really? I say to the government: take a look at the empty theatres and concert halls across the nation, the art galleries that have closed down. Take a walk up Sydney Road in my electorate of Wills at night and hear the eerie silence where once there was a buzz of live music to be heard. Just listen to these sectors; their voices plead for help. They're on their knees. But what this coalition government did instead was deliver a half-baked scheme for the arts, a $200 million package to support a $111 billion arts and entertainment industry. Of this, more than 30 per cent is in the form of concessional loans which will eventually have to be paid back. It fell way far short of that glossy announcement, when the arts minister, Paul Fletcher, confirmed weeks ago that the government had only delivered half of that package that was promised—more government incompetence, no surprises there. Guy Sebastian, who the government trotted out, said himself that the government's efforts have been dismal. According to Guy, no-one seems to have followed through on their words. The artists, the musicians, the actors, dancers, singers, filmmakers of Australia deserve better than what this government is dishing up. They deserve more than a photo op.
These decisions impact local communities across the country, especially in my electorate of Wills, where the suburb of Brunswick, for example, has one of the highest concentrations of artists in Australia. I've been contacted by so many during this pandemic. One example from Brunswick is Jared, who owns a touring theatre company which continually falls through the cracks of the government's support. He's had to cancel tour after tour because of lockdowns in different states. All 11 of his casuals have been stood down without pay. His full-time staff are all working reduced hours.
In contrast to this, Labor will always support artists and the arts in Australia. We took policies to the last election that would do so. When the pandemic hit Australia in March last year, many of my colleagues and I campaigned for a targeted package for the events, entertainment and the arts sectors. It's not too late to lend a hand. The government, as a matter of emergency, should set up a national COVID-19 insurance scheme for the arts, entertainment and events industry, similar to the temporary interruption fund for the film industry. Labor's been calling for this now for six months, but the government has stubbornly refused to act.
Commercial insurance is no longer available for events against COVID-19. That means all the investments made into those events now being cancelled will be lost. Some businesses will now be assessing whether or not they can survive the other side of the current restrictions. We want people to invest in the arts, in the entertainment sector, in events in Australia, but how can they if they're unable to insure against lockdowns in COVID restrictions? We know the devastating impact this pandemic is having on the huge arts sector in Australia. Whether it be musicians, actors, dancers or performers, all have had their gigs cancelled. Visual artists cannot hold exhibitions. Lighting technicians and theatre ushers are being stood down. There is no part of the arts sector that is unaffected.
Because of that passion I have for the arts and the background I have in it, and because it's so important for us as a nation, as a society, I'll always stand up for the arts and for artists in this parliament. The arts do matter. Australian stories matter. Our Australian content makes a difference to our lives. It's somewhat intangible, difficult to measure, but it has such inherent value. So their work has to go through and go forward. They are not only vital to our economy but also to our society and to our culture. We cannot forget about them. We shouldn't take them for granted. We must support the arts. I call on the government to backtrack from these changes in schedule 1.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (18:16): [by video link] This Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021 contains several Treasury law amendments. It has several schedules, but today I will focus on reforms to the Australian screen production incentives.
On 30 September 2020 the government announced a media reforms package, which is a massive overhaul of the supports offered from the screen content sector. These reforms will have lasting ramifications for Australian film, documentaries and television shows and on how we portray our culture and Australian identity to generations to come. The reforms will focus on producer offset legislation. First introduced in 2007, the tax laws amendment act was designed to encourage investment in Australian film, television and documentary programs and increase the productivity output and growth of the screen industry.
According to the explanatory memorandum of the act, the legislation was introduced at a time when the industry was striving to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing global market. The producer offset portion of those reforms was, at the time, a major new support mechanism to assist producers in being competitive and responsive to audiences as well as to create sustainable production businesses. The producer offset is a refundable tax offset for producers of Australian films. Currently, it provides for 40 per cent of expenditure offset incurred making feature films and 20 per cent of expenditure for TV series, documentaries, animation series or online content. And guess what? The legislation worked.
In the 14 years since the act was introduced, the Australian screen content sector has grown into a remarkable industry, which has made an impact across Australia and in international markets. The industry employs 30,500 people and contributes over $5.34 billion to the economy. The industry also helps attract tourism. Over $725 million of tourism expenditure can be linked back to Australian content in the entertainment industry.
I'm lucky to have in my electorate of Warringah many content producers. From Cheeky Little Media, Kapow Pictures, Spark pictures to Flying Bark Productions, these producers are making word-class content here. But since the industry has matured it's now grappling with the major technological shifts. Audiences are now primarily using online services—specifically, streaming video on demand, like Netflix, Prime, Stan and Disney Plus. Seventy-one per cent of Australians have at least one subscription to a streaming service. The annual revenue of streaming subscriptions is a sizeable $1.8 billion. There are benefits to this shift, including that producers are no longer reliant on established media gatekeepers, such as theatrical distributors or broadcasters, to reach people and make a return on investment. However, in the aggregate, because there are no content obligations on streaming services, Australians and people overseas are losing access to Australian content, which has tangible and intangible benefits for our society and our culture.
Australian content matters. The stories make us who we are. They make us come to terms with who we've been, who we were, who we want to be. They tell the important stories. Who could forget household names like Bluey and Home and Away? They've gone international. Through our content we broadcast to the world what makes Australia Australian, and we need to do all that we can to continue to foster and broadcast Australian stories and support this industry, which is so important to our culture, society and economy.
Stories like Bluey and Home and Away only exist because of our unique system of local content rules and government support. However, with the massive upheaval that is occurring at the moment, the government is modernising the regulatory framework to make Australian content and broadcasters competitive in the digital age, and that is coming with disruption for our content producers. I accept that we need to modernise our regulatory regime, but we also need to be sensitive to parts of the industry who may be left behind.
As part of the government's reform of this sector announced last year, the government is harmonising the producer offset, which will be 30 per cent for all formats. It's increasing the threshold for feature-length content supported through the producer offset from $500,000 to $1 million. It's removing the 65 commercial hour episode cap for drama series. It's removing the ability to claim production costs incurred in other countries towards the producer offset, also known as the Gallipoli clause.
I welcome some of these measures. I welcome the increase to the producer offset rate to 30 per cent and harmonising it across formats. This will provide additional funding for TV production in particular. However, I've received so much feedback and so many representations from constituents and companies in this sector about the impact of these changes. Constituents who are award-winning journalists and documentary makers with significant contributions to Australia and to our culture—some of the films you may have seen are My Year of Living Mindfully and The Crossing—worry the changes will impact their ability to make impactful documentaries, going forward, and risk the loss of regional Indigenous voices and the unique stories of our Australian explorers and scientists and entrepreneurs.
The primary concern is that raising the threshold of the producer offset to productions of over $1 million leaves productions in the mid-range, between $500,000 to $750,000, in significant uncertainty, and my constituents believe that up to 58 per cent of the documentary productions in the country will cease under this new threshold. Secondly, they argue that the changes to the Gallipoli clause may act as a deterrence to film and documentary producers to hiring Australian staff for these productions. Instead, overseas crews will be hired, as it's financially cheaper and better for those productions. Thirdly, a separate constituent, a writer in the writing industry, feels the removal of the overheads as allowable expenditure will materially reduce the benefits of the 40 per cent rebate, so this could further erode support for a sector which has already been hit so hard by the pandemic.
To offset the impacts of the reforms the government is making, $30 million over two years to support the production of Australian drama, documentary and children's film and television content has been announced. Screen Australia has also received $3 million to establish a competitive grant program. But let's be real here. These supports are not enough to compensate for the proposed changes. The government shouldn't walk away when more needs to be done—make changes to the threshold and the Gallipoli clause or at least make exemptions for documentary makers. Documentaries are so vital in raising awareness of issues and really bringing that depth of knowledge to the Australian people across so many fields.
In addition, we need to look at how we regulate streaming services. I've been inundated with emails calling for content rules to be extended to streaming services. We urgently need to update content regulations to ensure that Australians continue to have access to new, diverse Australian programming on the platforms they actually use. I understand that the government has placed an initial requirement on the streamers to report on how much Australian content they broadcast and that the government is considering a five per cent content requirement. However, it's well short of what the industry needs and are calling for. In Canada and the European Union, they're proposing a 30 per cent local content requirement. Australian content producers are calling for a 20 per cent requirement. This sustainable level for a total quota on all streaming services would make it internationally competitive.
The Australian screen industry desperately needs the Morrison government to start listening to its calls for what it's needing. It is undergoing structural change. I accept that we need to modernise the regulatory regime. Things have to change, but that doesn't mean that we should be leaving significant and important parts of the industry behind, particularly documentary producers. We need to think carefully about the changes to the producer offset and the Gallipoli clause. These changes will leave lasting impacts on an industry that has already been devastated by COVID. To keep pace with the changing way Australians view content, we must look at extending content quotas to streaming services. Without this support, Australian content will go into structural decline and we will be the worse for it. I call on the government as a matter of urgency to regulate streamers so we can protect what makes Australia unique: our culture, our history and our storytelling.
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (18:26): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021. I love the movies. Hollywood blockbusters, edgy indies, documentaries, Korean films—I love them all. But I especially love the Australian screen industry. The fact is, we have long boasted being home to some of the world's greatest screen industry figures both in front of and, just as importantly, behind the camera. In Tasmania, we've played host in recent years to Van Diemen's Land, The Hunter, The Nightingale, The KetteringIncident and Lion. For TV we've just seen season 5—the last season, unfortunately—of Rosehaven wrap up. If I may have a brief indulgence: there's a small section of me in Rosehaven. If you look at season 1 as the car's driving through New Norfolk, there's an old election poster as they drive past. There's my head. Not quite a starring role, but I'm there!
We've got so much to offer in Australia: a wealth of acting talent and, of course, eye-popping scenery. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that we are blessed with some of the most enviable natural landscapes and backdrops right here in Australia. Film is etched into our national DNA. It's part of our national identity. 'How's the serenity?' 'You're terrible, Muriel.' We even produced the world's first ever feature film, way back in 1906: The Story of the Kelly Gang, a story that's been told and retold in many ways. The original launched on 26 December 1906 at Melbourne's Athenaeum Theatre—the first ever Boxing Day release, as it were. Australians are pioneers of film, and it's clear that we punch well above our weight on the world stage, with Australians featuring heavily on and off the screen in Hollywood.
But, as great as it is to see Hugh Jackman flash his metal fingers, Nicole Kidman play Woolf, Chris Hemsworth fling Mjolnir or Cate Blanchett rule England, it is even more vital that we continue to see Australians portraying Australians and telling Australian stories. We can only do that with an Australian screen industry rooted in Australian culture; embedded in this nation's soil and spirit. We are a country designed for the screen—our light, our landscapes, our people and our histories—and we should be making full use of these resources. Imagine an Australian film industry without Chips Rafferty, Robert Tudawali or Bill Hunter. It's unimaginable.
This bill is so disappointing. It is steeped in mediocrity. There are just two proposed measures in this bill that are of benefit: an increase in the producer offset for TV productions from 20 to 30 per cent and the removal of the 65-hour cap on the producer offset for TV. But the government has attached a bunch of other things that are harmful. And it could have been worse, of course: without a concerted campaign by the screen sector, by this side of the House and, it must be said, by the junior partner in the coalition government, this bill would also have included an outright reduction in the producer offset for the Australian feature film sector.
Unfortunately, the other measures remain in place. The increase in the qualifying expenditure threshold for the producer offset is bad news for many smaller and lower budget films. Documentaries, which typically have a budget of just over $500,000, will suffer the most. How do we tell our Australian stories without documentaries? Think about recent hits like Mountain, Mystify, 2040 and That Sugar Film. These are productions we want to encourage, not discourage, because truth-telling has never been more important—documentaries about our Indigenous origins and their intersection with European influences; about our natural environment and how it is impacted by climate change; our military traditions; the emergence and decline of industries and their replacement with new technologies; and our incredible people. These are documentaries that are unlikely to ever turn a profit but serve the nation nevertheless and become repositories of footage and curators' stories. And there need to be Australian stories. American documentaries and British documentaries are fantastic, but they are American stories and British stories. We need to protect the Australian story. Documentaries hone the skills of filmmakers. We want to nurture these talents and see them bloom.
If we value the role of the screen industry only in the dollars and cents that are transacted at the box office, we do ourselves a great disservice. How cheap our love of culture is if it is to be measured only in how much popcorn is devoured. There are similar problems with the increase in the qualifying expenditure threshold for the PDV offset, which applies to post-production and visual effects—a long-winded way of saying special effects. This is a sector Australia excels at, even though you don't hear about it as much. It's a growing industry. But a change like this could cut it off at the knees. The special effects industry is massive, and our excellence in this country continues to be noted on a global scale by huge production companies like Marvel.
Again, a short-sighted government seeks to hike the eligibility threshold and leave growing companies without a leg to stand on. Perversely, you've got to be big and successful to get government assistance. It's a bit like happily handing out government millions to billionaires while shaking down pensioners for the return of Centrelink overpayments. If there is one aspect of this bill that highlights the ignorance of the government when it comes to our cultural heritage on screen it is the removal of the Gallipoli clause. This clause got its name from the 1981 movie Gallipoli because it is the best example of an Australian story which could not avoid filming part of its production overseas. This clause existed so that Australian movies that needed to film scenes overseas could still claim that expenditure against the offset and not be disadvantaged. It's a simple concept: Australian films should not have to suffer financially just because essential scenes are shot overseas. How would one film Gallipoli without the Dardanelles? How would one film Lion without going to India? It's both unreasonable and impossible.
In typical fashion, the government has not provided any clear rationale for these damaging changes. It seems clear that the reason is nothing more than penny-pinching—from an industry that is already reeling from the pandemic. A sensible government would know this is not the time to make life harder for business—any business. We have heard from the shadow minister that, if these changes go ahead, one production company alone faces losing 40 of its staff—40 jobs gone, just like that, because of entirely unnecessary and counterproductive changes.
But we do know that this government has little regard for Australia's arts sector. To those opposite, the arts is all berets and caftans, and wine and cheese and cocktails spent discussing Kafka. But the arts is so much more diverse than a meeting of the Kooyong branch of the Liberal Party. The arts is a $3 billion sector that employs 30,000 Australians—far too many of them poorly and insecurely. The fact is that this is not a minister who cares about the screen sector or the jobs or the people in it. This is not a government that cares about telling Australian stories crafted by Australian people.
But it never used to be this way. The Liberal Party used to value traditions and culture as the bedrock of this nation. The party of Sir Robert Menzies and Malcolm Fraser would never have inflicted these wounds on our arts sector. They valued the arts, and the richness and the vigour that the arts provide to our country. But now the Liberals are the wreckers and the radical agents of change. They have no interest in protecting our national culture and our national institutions. Instead, they want to destroy and remake them in the warped visage of the modern Liberal Party—a hollow creature that values nothing but the accumulation of money and power.
Australia's screen industry contributes billions and employs thousands, and it's as valid an industry as construction, tourism or retail. The jobs are just as real. The people are just as real. The need to pay bills and rent and mortgages and feed a family is just as real. This is a sector that has been smashed by COVID but has received none of the support that it needs. But we have seen that, with this Prime Minister, support is conditional on who you are and who you work for, and the Liberals are all too happy to turn off the lights and pull the curtain on Australian arts.
Ms BUTLER (Griffith) (18:36): The Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021 is a really important piece of legislation, of course, and I rise to speak on it out of general concern for this topic but also because I have constituents in my electorate who work in the field. These are people who work very, very hard, who are working in an industry that's really important for Australia and who, frankly, have raised some concerns with me about what the government is doing. Of course, there are some good aspects to this proposed legislation. Typical of this government, though, it has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to doing something good for TV, and here it is finally doing something. But also typical of this mob is that they've attached a whole bunch of things to this that are really quite negative for the rest of the industry.
Let's just remember for a moment that, without a concerted campaign by the opposition and the screen sector across Australia, this bill would also have included an outright reduction in the producer offset for the Australian feature film sector, from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. This of course is incredibly worrying for people who are working in the creative industries, because it's just emblematic of this government's approach to the creative industries and to the arts. They've never seen a creative industries business that they've understood, I think. They seem to not understand the contribution of the creative industries to our Australian economy, to our Australian society and to our Australian culture.
If you just think back to the first budget that this government handed down, in 2014, then Prime Minister Abbott's first budget—not a well-received budget; in fact, probably the least well received budget in many, many years within memory—that budget took the axe to a range of arts funding and creative industries funding, including, I might say, the Interactive Games Fund, which was a Labor initiative to basically make sure that we have a games industry in this country—really important. But the Liberals and Nationals just didn't understand the significance of that, and so they cut it.
Here, we're talking about screen production. The government did back down on their plans to reduce the producer offset for the Australian feature film sector because they were under such immense pressure. It's true, though, that the government has to be placed under pressure; otherwise, it will try to sneak through cuts to and attacks on the creative industries.
Nonetheless, it is worth noting that the increase in qualifying expenditure for the producer offset is bad news for many smaller and lower budget films. Often it's only because of the producer offset that such films can get off the ground here in Australia. Documentaries, which typically have a budget of just over $500,000, are particularly poorly affected. How else do we tell our Australian stories without documentaries? It's a great question, and a lot of people here would remember that we've talked about Australian documentaries in the past, and we need to encourage those productions.
I mentioned that I have a lot of people throughout my electorate who work in this sector, who have businesses in my electorate that are involved in the creative industries. I wanted to particularly mention the increase in the qualifying expenditure threshold for the PDV offset. This applies to post-production and visual effects. This is a sector that Australia actually excels at, even though you don't necessarily hear about it much. Firms like Animal Logic have worked on some of the biggest movies and TV shows out there. It's a really growing industry. And people have spoken about this. I'm not the first and I won't be the last Labor person to speak about these issues.
But I did just want to mention that I received some correspondence from the Australian Post & VFX Alliance—the industry body for the firms that are involved in this particular field, which is post-production and visual effects. It's a copy of a letter that they sent to the minister, and it's under the hand of Marcus Bolton. Marcus wrote to the minister and said, 'The Australian feature film and television industry has enjoyed blockbuster success over the past decade.' He said that government support, and latterly COVID, have accelerated that success, enabling Australia to attract millions in filming and post-production work that would typically stay offshore. His letter goes on to say that the government's PDV offset—the post, digital and visual effects offset—has supported Australian post-production companies to win more international projects and to create more local jobs. He goes on to say, 'However, this hard work is now in jeopardy as the government proposes to raise the offset threshold from $500,000 to $1 million,' and that that's included in the bill that's before us.
He goes on to say that, with most post-production and visual effects budgets below $1 million, increasing the offset threshold risks forfeiting all this work offshore and handing what remains in Australia back to the few large internationally owned firms, leaving Australian owned companies unable to compete. What a terrible thing for this country to lose creative industries firms and to lose work to international competitors in this crucial sector. He says that the Australian post-production and visual effects industry will miss out on the millions worth of post-production and visual effects projects every year, with growing export revenues cut off overnight. He says that the consequence will be that 400 full- and part-time jobs will be loss in Australia—that's the significance of this change—and that the opportunity to cross-subsidise Australian productions and tell Australian stories, which comes with getting this work, will be lost.
I think you can tell from what the industry body are saying that they have grave concerns about this. I just wanted to mention that another person from the same industry, someone who I know very well, has put it to me in slightly blunter terms. He said to me: 'We have done it tough enough through COVID, so why, when we're on our knees, make it worse with these proposed changes, which will kill the Australian domestic post-production sector? It simply makes no sense.' That's what this gentleman said to me, and he's got a business that is based in my electorate that does this sort of work.
When you see bills like this, they've got these dry titles, and it sounds very technical, but really what they're about is creative industries, Australian culture, Australian content and Australian jobs. Here in this House, at all times, but particularly now—when our country is facing a crisis of a scale that is really unprecedented in everyone's lifetimes who are here; when we are under a lot of anxiety; when we have come to appreciate the value of entertainment and of content, of documentaries, of information to keep us company through those lockdown periods that we've had, particularly for people in quarantine, who can't go out, who are alone, and for whom entertainment and film and screen are links and connections to the outside world that they have precious few of—we have seen the importance of content, of screens, of films, of TV. Why on earth would we want to make it harder for small and medium Australian companies to participate in that sector?
How important is it to us, as a nation, that we see ourselves reflected back to us? How important is it that we see Australian stories on our screens? And how important is it to us that we see Australian jobs and Australian creatives and Australian businesses making a contribution to this sector? It is so important. I really want to urge the government to consider very carefully changes that they're making to these sorts of arrangements that could have these knock-on effects for Australians. I know that I'm not the only person with constituents in this sector, but, of course, representing, as I do, an inner-city inner-Brisbane electorate, I know I've got an incredibly high proportion of people for whom this would be incredibly important. So I wanted to speak to the bill to make those points, and to encourage the government because, look, you've just got to get better at dealing with the arts. That's high arts, that's low arts. You've got to think about how relevant the arts are to the Australian people. You have just got to take them into account, take them into your thinking.
We all saw during COVID how the government deliberately designed JobKeeper to exclude certain sectors, and the arts really suffered during COVID. The arts are still suffering in this country. It's not just screen, of course; it's everything. It's theatre, it's music, it's ballet, it's opera, it's the orchestras who don't necessarily have audiences, it's the live bands, it's the jazz clubs, it's the art galleries, it's visual arts, it's dance. I should give a special shout-out to playwrights and dramaturges—I certainly have one or two friends who would be very sad if they didn't get a shout-out—because they've been suffering. Creative people whose lives and whose passions have been dedicated to entertaining, informing and creating Australian stories to reflect our society back to itself, they've been suffering through COVID. As I said, this government designed JobKeeper for certain sectors. They delayed and delayed and delayed on the arts support. Even on a much smaller scale, in my electorate last year I had to fight this government when they were trying to cut funding for Backbone Youth Arts, a lovely organisation that engages young people in the arts and also contributes to job outcomes for people. At the moment we're in another battle for this poor organisation, because the LNP council administration in Brisbane is trying to get them out of their current lodgings in east Brisbane.
Why is the LNP so hopeless when it comes to the arts? Why can't Liberals and Nationals understand in their bones, like we do on the Labor side of the House, the significance of the creative arts—even just the question of a creative outlet or even participation. When we talk about sport we sometimes talk about the elite sports on the one hand and the club sports, community sports on the other. It's the same with the arts. Of course we all love the elite arts—we love the big stadium concerts, we love amazing headline visual arts exhibitions—but there's also the participation dimension of the arts. There's the participation dimension of being in a local band—maybe you're in a garage band; I certainly am—or maybe you play in an orchestra or maybe you are involved in amateur jazz or tap.
An honourable member interjecting—
Ms BUTLER: I'm not going to take that interjection. Whatever it is, these things aren't just about creating art to perform or to show in front of an audience; they're also for the inherent joy of creating, of making something. Maybe the audience is only yourself. Maybe it's just a way to help you feel better through the existential crisis that we are all going through at the moment—COVID, climate change; there's a lot of anxiety out there, there's a lot of fear. So I say to the government that the arts are not a peripheral consideration. They're not a side issue. They're not some sort of thing that only a small proportion of Australians care about. The arts are fundamental to our wellbeing as a nation, and you guys need to get better.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (18:49): In lockdown, which many of us are in at the moment and some of us have been through for a long time, it's the arts that have got many people through. It's been the things we've watched and the things we've listened to that have got us through. We all take it for granted that we can sit there and open up ABC iview or binge on whatever streaming service we like. We all take it for granted that we can enjoy ourselves and pass the time with the arts during these very difficult times. But the arts need our support. If they're going to be there for us, we need to be there for them.
What we've seen instead from this government, especially during the course of the pandemic, is bringing the arts sector to its knees. We saw that with the exclusion of so many casual workers from the original round of JobKeeper, a wage subsidy which the Greens were the first party to call for. We saw the government completely decimate a whole group of people simply because they happened to be employed as casual workers. In my area of Melbourne, a big part of our economy is heavily reliant on people getting together to enjoy themselves. We've got a visitor economy but we've also got an event economy. Many of the people who work for the comedy festival, the arts festival or the international film festival are employed on a casual basis. They do it from year to year. This is the thing I think the government doesn't quite get. Arts isn't just about people who make something that appears on TV, or a piece of music or an artwork—it's all of the people who work around them to make it happen.
When those events had to be cancelled—many are still being cancelled in Melbourne at the moment—a lot of people were out of work. A sector that is helping us get through the crisis by providing the entertainment and distraction that so many of us need got next to no support from the government. In fact, so many of those people who made their whole living based on working in connection with the festivals, which up till now had been a regular part of every year that you could plan your year around, all of a sudden found themselves with nothing. In many instances, the government wouldn't even give them JobKeeper. It wouldn't even give them JobKeeper. Many businesses in the arts sector found it incredibly difficult to support their staff and even continue to get by. We had to push and push and push the cause of the arts with this government to get minimal support for sectors of the arts and creative industry.
What became apparent in the course of the pandemic—because it reveals the cracks already underlying society—is that the government is actually quite hostile to an understanding of a certain sector of the arts, just like it is with education. That is why it excluded so many people in the education and creative sectors from JobKeeper and from any kind of support. It's why, even now with this bill, the government is coming back again with another attack. What it wanted to do is say, 'We're going to provide some support to film and television, and we're going to increase the support that's available to television.' That's something we would welcome, because we have been fighting for it for a very long time. But, of course, the government can't give with one hand without taking away with the other. So it announced that it was going to increase the TV offset by harmonising it with the film offset, by reducing the film offset from 40 per cent to 30 per cent. Whenever the government says, 'We're going to do something that is helping a sector,' you have to look pretty closely. You didn't even have to look at the fine print for this one to see that—in the middle of a pandemic, at a time when the industry was already doing it tough in ways that I've just explained, including in areas like TV and film—the government came and said, 'We want to cut support for you even further.' We fought them off on film and we won. But there are other measures in this bill which again betray the government's hostility towards the arts and the creative sector.
The increase of the minimum expenditure threshold for a production to be eligible from $500,000 to $1 million will have a huge impact on the sector in Australia, including in Melbourne and Victoria, where we are fortunate to be housing so many people associated with the sector, not only actors but also production staff and all the way through the chain. At a time when the industry, which employs so many people, is trying to get back on its feet, why would you want to cut support? Why would you want to cut support to independent films and documentaries that are making sure that we can tell stories about ourselves to ourselves, that we can tell Australian stories to people in this country? This is the level at which it happens, and yet it's not as if the government is short of a quid when it comes to handing out money to support certain sectors. There were tens of billions of dollars available for big corporations and billionaires who didn't need it. Gerry Harvey was quite happy to be sucking at the public teat and getting JobKeeper from this government, and then he went on to make record profits off the back of public support.
You may know this, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, but many people wouldn't: if you go and put petrol in your car to fill up, you pay 40-odd cents a litre in tax. But when Gina Rinehart and her big mining companies go and put diesel in their trucks, they pay the tax and then, at the end of every year, the public writes them a great big refund cheque. So the public are paying for their petrol tax twice: they're paying when they go and fill up themselves and they're paying so that Gina Rinehart can have tax-free diesel, cheap diesel. Clive Palmer and all of the other billionaires on their mining sites get cheap petrol, which is subsidised by the Australian public. The government is prepared to give $8 billion a year in the fuel tax credit.
Government members interjecting—
Mr BANDT: This is very sensitive for the government. They're interjecting, defending Gina Rinehart and defending Clive Palmer because they know they are willing to write cheques for billions of dollars a year to support the fossil fuel industry. We're very happy to have that diesel fuel rebate going to farmers because they are doing it tough. But why do big mining corporations need to be subsidised by the public to buy cheap fuel? At the same time as the government comes in here with a bill that says we are going to cut funding from the creative and film sector, they say, 'We can find billions of dollars in the kitty to take from the public to help Gina Rinehart and Clive Palmer buy cheap diesel for their mining trucks.' At this time of climate crisis, when we're looking for ways to make our economy lower emissions, the government says, 'We will spend billions of dollars a year to subsidise the big coal and gas corporations, but we're going to cut money from the creative sector.' That is what this government is about. It is all about priorities, and the priorities of this government are to be nothing more than a bunch of corporate shields for the big coal and gas corporations, many of which make donations to this government.
What is even worse is that at the time that the government comes along and says, 'We've got to cut money going to the creative sector,' they will give billions to the coal and gas corporations, and these coal and gas corporations don't even pay tax. The biggest gas corporations between them brought in $55 billion a year in income in the last recorded year. Do you know how much tax they paid? Zero—zero dollars tax. The government then has the gall to say, 'Not only will we make you pay no tax, but can we give you a handout as well?' But then the government says: 'I'm sorry, there's not enough money for film and television to give them the kind of support they need. There's not enough money for the arts sector to give them the support they need. There's not enough money for education to give them the support they need.' That is because this government does nothing more than the bidding of the coal and gas corporations while everyone else can go hang.
I would have thought, during a pandemic, that the thing to do would be to create employment, and you don't create employment by pulling the rug out from under the creative sector. A job working in the arts should be treated just as importantly by this government as a job in the mines, but it's not—the government does not treat it as importantly. The government says, 'If you're working in the creative sector or you're working in the education sector, you're fair game—we're coming after you.' This government says that they're all about business but they're only for a certain kind of business, and if you happen to work in the arts and creative sector then the government is coming after you.
We see this time and time again. They love to get the photo op with the big Hollywood stars but one-off support to big productions is not the same as systemic support for the screen industry. That's what we need: we need systemic support for the screen industry. Australian audiences deserve to see stories on their screens that reflect the diversity of our community. We need a strong local screen industry to tell our stories. The next step to provide that kind of systemic support and to protect the local industry must be to legislate local content quotas for streaming services like Netflix, Amazon and Stan. We need to do that; that has to be the next step.
The Greens have been fighting for the arts and entertainment workers throughout the pandemic. We are also fighting for an arts insurance scheme to underwrite live events that may need to be cancelled due to COVID. But, to conclude, again this government says they're coming along and providing support, but they can't provide support at the same time on one hand without cutting it and taking it with the other. So we will seek to amend this legislation in the Senate so that we can start to provide the kind of support, ongoing and secure, that our creative sectors need.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (19:02): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021.
The government needs to support the screen sector. We heard from previous speakers how vital it is to the telling of our Australian stories, and I can only agree 100 per cent with the comments that have been made. In my electorate, like in many other electorates around our country, there are absolute professionals who are so excellent at their jobs in this sector and who have been telling those stories to a grateful nation and to international audiences for a long, long time. As the member for Lyons mentioned in his contribution, there was that first feature film about Ned Kelly and how many times that has been retold over time and given new perspectives. It's vital that we make sure that these excellent Australian professional people are able to be competitive in the world.
The government, those opposite, need to implement Australian content obligations immediately on global streamers, to ensure that our stories—Australian stories—are told. That's so our culture and our values, those values which define us, are displayed on screens where not only Australians but people from all around the world get a sense of our stories, our values and our various and amazing cultures.
Those opposite, the Prime Minister in particular, have wanted to use our Olympians—he has tried to attach himself to them at a time when he has failed when it comes to the vaccine rollout. What he needs to understand is that, as good as our Olympians are, Australian screen professionals are every bit as good. They are world class. They are the best. They represent us around the world. So many of them go overseas to continue to ply their trade, being the professionals that they are. They bring us credibility, whether they're working in Australia or overseas. They bring credibility to Australia because they are excellent at what they do. With support from the federal government, they will be able to do a lot more of it right here in Australia. They are quite brilliant at what they do. I've worked with some of them, but they shake their heads at the lack of understanding from those opposite about how important the telling of these stories is to a nation.
Now, during COVID, as previous speakers have mentioned, we have sometimes taken for granted, I think, being able to binge on some of this content. Due to the great work of the Northern Territory government, I've not spent that much time locked down, but I know that those who have been and continue to be locked down are having more screen time than perhaps they have in a long time. What we will continue to find is that there'll be fewer Australian stories told on those screens if the government doesn't change tack. If the government doesn't act right now then, just like this bungled vaccine rollout, our industry and our content will be left behind, particularly as European and Canadian content obligations swallow up the global revenue and content slots from these massive businesses, these streaming organisations.
In other words, Australian professional workers and Australian film and TV production businesses that are not being supported by the coalition as well as they should be will lose out to international competitors. It would be nice to see more support for them from those opposite by way of this need to put these obligations on the streamers. It would mean that, like our Olympians, they would be able to compete on the international stage. Australian businesses and Australian workers in the creative arts would be able to compete.
Our stories from my electorate—from Darwin and Palmerston—and from the Northern Territory are particularly epic. They are really critical to the definition of who we are and what we want our children to identify with. Our Top End industry has some of the greatest storytellers Australia has to offer, but, unfortunately, their voices will be silenced without a demand for content on these streamers. We welcome the government increasing the offset credit for TV to 30 per cent and retaining the film offset at 40 per cent, because, without these, movies like High Ground would not have been able to be made in the Top End. I use this film as an example, and I know some people who worked on this particular film. For those who haven't seen it, I can really recommend it. It is a stunning film. Not only does it show the stunning landscapes of Arnhem Land; it tells a very important story about First Nations people coming into contact with non-Indigenous Australians. It is a great story about the effect of war on those that go to it and the conflict that happened in our nation, so it really is a vehicle for reconciliation.
Those opposite are not too fond of truth-telling, it must be told. That's why they've seen fit, for some unknown reason—perhaps an aversion to the truth—to not support documentary films. That is short-sighted and unfortunate as well. Those opposite really need to think more about this sector, about the telling of Australian stories and about making our professional people in the screen industry, and in the creative industries more broadly, more competitive against foreign companies in this same sector.
The need for obligations around local content, particularly for these streamers, will make all the difference in the world, to make sure we've got a sustainable industry for job growth and economic growth in this sector—a sector that has been decimated by COVID. We've heard from previous speakers about the lack of support for this sector and for creatives in general from the government. If we can make sure that there are these competitive obligations for streamers then our industry will grow. That will mean more Australians in jobs and more successful Australian companies, and we'll have an industry that reflects who we are as Australians. We need that systemic support for the screen industry. I think one of the previous speakers likened these big Hollywood numbers to a bit of a sugar hit; they employ a lot of people for a short amount of time. They are welcome, of course, but it is this systemic support of the screen industry that will drive growth and, as I said, will make us more competitive internationally.
Cutting support to documentaries is just dumb. It's stupid. Truth-telling will never get us the reform we need in our country. It won't give us the facts. It won't give us the data that, in our busy lives, other than through documentary film-making and good current affairs and investigative journalism, we can find out. The Australian people deserve to have those documentary stories told.
Maybe it is, as another speaker previously mentioned, that those opposite haven't had much to do with the creative industries in their careers. Maybe that's true. I learned, when I started making some films, that a documentary film is a lot of work, employs a lot of people and is really, really important. One of the films was called A Debt of Honour. It is a good example of a film that would not possibly have been made and licensed, but the Nine Network had documentary content obligations. The reason we were able to make this film is that the Nine Network had documentary film obligations. They're important. This film was able to get funded, and Australians, on Anzac Day 2005, when it first screened on Channel Nine, were able to watch an hour-long documentary that told the story of Australia's deep relationship with Timor-Leste from World War II through to the current day. That story had not been told in a documentary format. There was filming in Timor-Leste and in Australia, with veterans from World War II and veterans from INTERFET, telling that story through 1975 and through the intervention to the current day, reflecting the stories of our soldiers in their own words about their deep feelings about not only their country but service to our nation. That film was able to be made because there were these content obligations. Post-production is also something I learnt on that film. You write a script, you go away, you shoot a film, and then the work begins in post-production. That is, unfortunately, where this legislation lets down members of such an impressive and important sector, those who are in post-production jobs in particular.
So what are we on this side on about? We are committed to supporting Australian stories being told—and told by Australian creatives, not people overseas. People from overseas will always be welcome to come and help tell us our stories, but we want Australian companies to succeed and we want Australian workers to come up through the trade and see a career in telling Australian stories. We have a long-term commitment to a well-supported and well-funded Australian film industry. I again encourage those opposite to do more to assist with local content.
Jobs and a talented and creative workforce will enable small to medium sized businesses to produce diverse and quality Australian content that local and international audiences will love to watch. At the end of the day, we are an excellent country and we are great storytellers—from First Nations Australians through to the young people who are making films in my electorate right now telling local stories. They are important stories and we have the ability to tell more of these stories and be internationally competitive if we get behind this vital industry, this vital sector for our nation.
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (19:17): I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. Schedule 1 to the bill increases the producer offset for films that are not feature films released in cinemas, to 30 per cent of total qualifying Australian production expenditure, and makes various threshold and integrity amendments across the three screen tax offsets. These changes will ensure the screen tax offsets effectively target areas that require support and encourage production and commercial distribution of quality.
Schedule 2 to the bill relates to small-business insolvency. The small-business insolvency reforms, which came into effect on 1 January 2021, introduced new insolvency processes suitable for small businesses, reducing complexity, time and costs. These processes enable more Australian small businesses to quickly restructure. Where restructure is not possible, businesses can wind up faster, enabling greater returns for creditors and employees. This measure makes consequential amendments which will support the operation of the new insolvency processes.
Schedule 3 to the bill makes minor and technical amendments to Treasury portfolio legislation. This includes amendments that clarify the law to ensure it operates in accordance with the policy intent; make minor policy changes to improve administrative outcomes or remedy unintended consequences; and correct technical or drafting defects.
I commend this bill to the House.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Goodenough ): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Watson has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.
Question agreed to.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.
Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (19:20): by leave—I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021
Second Reading
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (19:21): I move the second reading amendment that has been circulated in my name:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that:
(1) despite promising to streamline reporting in the charity sector, this government is instead pursuing changes to charity law that could stop charities and churches from speaking up for core principles and articles of faith in civil society, limiting their freedom of political communication and participation in our democratic system; and
(2) while the Government boasts about its multinational tax measures, it has failed to curtail the use of tax havens and tax avoidance schemes by multinational corporations".
Before question time, I spoke about the absurdity of the situation of Jan, who had received a notice requiring that she repay some $1,000 of the pension because she had received JobKeeper in her capacity as a part-time schoolteacher in Victoria. While the government is going hard after Jan, putting her on a $15-a-fortnight repayment plan, it has nothing to say to Gerry Harvey, to Solomon Lew, to Brett Blundy, to the other Australian billionaires who've gotten JobKeeper as a result of having significant shareholdings in firms that enjoyed a profitable year and paid a dividend. That's the double standard that we have in this government, a standard that says that Jan, who is on the pension, should have to pay back $1,000 through a repayment plan but that the billionaires who've benefited from JobKeeper aren't asked by this government to repay a cent. When we on this side of the House call on the government to at least exert a bit of moral courage and at least ask these firms to live up to their corporate social responsibility statements, we get told by the Prime Minister that we're playing the politics of envy. That's how out of touch this Prime Minister is—that he is willing to go after Jan but not to go after Australian billionaires.
We see again with this bill too little, too late being done on multinational tax avoidance. This is a measure that will finally shut down offshore banking units—good idea that. In fact, it's an idea that Labor had in 2011 to 2013, when we cracked down on offshore banking units. But, when the coalition came to office, in the 2014 MYEFO they deferred offshore banking unit changes, then costing the budget some $180 million. As I pointed out at the time, the effect of this was to slow the rate of economic growth in Australia, because, when you ask multinationals to pay a fair share of tax, that doesn't slow down Australia's economic growth rate, but, when you cut payments to the most vulnerable, as the government has repeatedly done, then you're taking money out of the economy, because those at the bottom of the income distribution spend all they get.
It was in 2018 that the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax Practices determined that Australia's offshore banking unit regime was a harmful preferential tax regime, on the grounds that it provided a concessional tax rate and was ring-fenced to exclude domestic transactions from its scope. In other words, the concession was only available in relation to transactions between parties that are foreign residents.
As members would be well familiar with, the offshore banking unit regime is only available through the provision of banking services to offshore customers. It attracts a concessional 10 per cent tax rate in place of the usual 30 per cent company tax rate and an exemption from interest withholding tax for applicable offshore banking unit activity. As I said, Labor cracked down on this a decade ago, and yet, when the Liberals came to office, the Abbott government wound back that crackdown on offshore banking units. The OECD said this was a harmful tax practice back in 2018, and yet it's taken the government three years to act.
What's happened to the cost of that tax break? As I said, back in 2014, it was $180 million a year. Now it's risen to $325 million a year. So it's grown from $180 million a year to $325 million a year. This is a harmful tax practice, but it's taken the Liberals far too long to shut it down. That's because they're always going soft on the powerful. When it comes to cracking down on tax havens, we had then Prime Minister Turnbull—remember the man who was happy to stand at the prime ministerial dispatch box and defend the use of tax havens?—say it was alright to have tax affairs being conducted through the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas.
Labor doesn't believe that. Labor does not support the use of tax havens, which is why we believe that we need to move not just behind the OECD but with the OECD in ensuring that the work being done on the base erosion and profit shifting project, the work being done to make sure that tax havens don't undercut the global tax system, is accelerated. But the Morrison government aren't interested in cracking down on tax havens. They're not interested in making sure multinationals pay their fair share, and it's taken them a decade to come to the party on shutting down offshore banking units. That's of a piece for the government, which have decided that they are perfectly happy giving billions of dollars to firms with rising earnings.
We now know that through the first three months of the JobKeeper program some $4.6 billion was given to firms whose earnings went up rather than down. If that's true over the entire scheme, we're talking about 15 per cent of the total JobKeeper spend going to firms with rising earnings. That would be some $13 billion, more than the Commonwealth spends on early child ed in a year and more than the Commonwealth spends on public schools in a year. Thirteen billion dollars is about $1,000 for every Australian adult. It is enough money to deliver fibre to the premises National Broadband Network to every urban home and business in Australia.
Treasury said that there should be an evaluation of the JobKeeper program, and yet there is no evaluation being conducted, as the Treasurer's own department recommended. If there were to be a review, there's no sign that it would actually be made public—that it would actually be given to the people that paid the bills for JobKeeper, JobKeeper that's gone to Harvey Norman and Premier Investments; JobKeeper that's gone to the Royal Sydney Golf Club and the Australian Club, the men's-only club in Sydney; and JobKeeper that's gone to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, an organisation which doubled its revenue and received $444 million in public funds.
In tomorrow's Financial Review commentator Joe Aston has belled the cat. He says of the Treasurer, 'He has misspent more public money than any elected official in the history of the Commonwealth.' They're the words that'll be on the back page of the Financial Review tomorrow. Australia's financial newspaper of record says tomorrow of the Treasurer, 'He has misspent more public money than any elected official in the history of the Commonwealth.'
The mismanagement of JobKeeper is a national scandal. Never before has the Commonwealth run a program this big. Never before has the Commonwealth wasted so much public money. The cost per job per year is around $200,000. There's no bargain in that.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ) (19:29): Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
Tucker, Ms Moira
Economy
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (19:30): [by video link] Last Friday I was part of Frankston City Council's launch of Frankston Zero, an important initiative to combat homelessness and assist rough sleepers. In his address at the launch, the state Minister for Housing, Richard Wynne, reminded all of us that every homeless person has a name. He didn't need to explain why he gave that gentle, as is his way, but powerful reminder. It was clear that he did so because when we refer to a person by their name it is impossible to forget that they have inherent worth. It was clear that he did so because when we refer to a person by their name it's impossible to forget that they have basic human dignity and that every person in our community, no matter their circumstances, has the same rights, like the right to shelter, even if we don't have a national charter of rights and responsibilities to promote and protect them.
Richard Wynne's words have stayed with me. His message resonated perhaps more profoundly than it otherwise may have, being delivered as it was the day after I was one of a mere 20 or so people who had attended the funeral of Frankston North resident Moira Tucker. Moira wasn't someone who would usually have her name spoken in this parliament, who would usually be given the respect of having her name record in Hansard for posterity. I think I met her only once, when she came to ask me for help against an attempt to evict her from her very modest rental property, but over the last two years I received countless emails from Moira, mostly about politics and how government could do better to care for people in need but more than a few about her beloved cats. Moira didn't win any awards. As far as I know she wasn't president of any community groups or even a member of one, apart from the Seaford Library. She didn't invent anything, she didn't win an Olympic medal and she didn't do anything to get herself on TV. But Moira was kind to her neighbours. Her friend Kate describes her as having had a sharp, inquisitive mind and as loving nothing more than a good debate, and just about everyone who worked at the Seaford Library either knew her or knew of her, her prolific borrowing and her regular suggestions for new books to add to the collection.
Moira had idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. She knew she was dying, and she wanted to maintain her independence until the end. She wanted to die in her own home on her own terms, but she couldn't, because she was poor. Although my office assisted her to get approval for a stage 4 aged-care package, the broken aged-care system couldn't deliver it to her in time, so she died alone in poverty in a hospital room. How, in the prosperous, generous country that we have, do we accept that?
In the end, those of us privileged enough to serve in this parliament won't be judged by how many eloquent speeches we give or how many books we write or even how many elections we win—or at least we shouldn't be. It's by how many Moira Tuckers live a life of fulfilment and die with their dignity that we should be judged. So while it might seem at times a million miles away, it's the Moira Tuckers of my community, of our country, that I think of when I talk about designing a national budget where economic prosperity is embedded in a larger story of wellbeing. When we take the care to name the people that we are here to represent and to tell their stories, the truth of economist Simon Kusnetz's declaration, that the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income, cannot be denied. COVID-19 has illustrated starkly and painfully that it's impossible to separate the health of our people from the performance of our economy and the strength of our society. Why then don't we require the federal government through this parliament to report annually on how we as a country are fairing on these fundamental pillars of wellbeing?
I'm attracted to the quadruple-bottom-line approach of measuring national wellbeing, where specific line items could reflect a modern Australian depiction of what's required for, or what constitutes, a good society and where we can build on the pioneering work of the Bureau of Statistics, Australian Treasury's 2004 wellbeing framework and the National Sustainability Council's 2013 measures of sustainable wellbeing. But I'm open to debate and I want a conversation about what an Australian national wellbeing budget would look like. It's a debate that I'm confident Moira, were she able to, would have loved to have been part of.
Mackellar Electorate: COVID-19
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (19:35): [by video link] I want to start off by thanking the parliament, the Speaker and the people who have made it possible for those of us who are with our communities during their time of need to still participate in this debate and, indeed, in the proceedings of parliament. It is truly an amazing thing that could not have been done that long ago.
Indeed, I come from a community that delivered so much not that long ago, over Christmas and New Year. While we were locked down or, as the people of Mackellar and the northern beaches prefer to think of it, while we kept people locked out, we were able to do so much to keep the rest of Australia free. That means we were able to keep kids at school, people at work, families together and good businesses in business. Now we are facing yet another great challenge, both here and across the rest of Sydney. There has been only one instance of community transmission of COVID on the northern beaches, and, indeed, in Mosman, North Sydney and so many other parts of Sydney there have been very few instances of community transmission. But we have shared in the pain and we have shared in the sacrifice that so many others need to go through.
I want to thank my community. I want to thank people like Andrew Pearce, the president of Whale Beach Surf Life Saving Club, who said, famously, 'Volunteerism is the price we pay for living on this planet,' and Peter Kinsey, who at the young age of 80-something finally started building the Long Reef surf lifesaving clubhouse for which they have waited so many years. He reminds us that it will replace a temporary surf lifesaving club that was built nearly 70 years ago.
Jane and Michelle at Bunnings have made sure that we all have the resources we need to make those improvements around the house. There are people like Monica at Gurtaj Restaurant at Collaroy and David Singer at Frenchies Brasserie, who has kept his restaurant and his business going when so many others have walked away. There are people like Cindy at Taste Espresso and Robert McIndoe at Sloppy Tee's, who, when this pandemic first happened, gave the shifts that his wife usually does during the week to other staff because they needed the money more than she did. I don't know how that went down at home, but it certainly worked well at work!
The fact of the matter remains that when my community was asked to give more, we did. When the people of south-west Sydney needed more vaccines, our workers, our tradies, our retirees and our children, especially those doing the HSC, gave up their vaccines to that the people in south-west Sydney could be vaccinated because they came from a hotspot. These are the sacrifices that we have made in order to ensure that we not only live in a country that will one day be free from this virus—or at least be able to live with this virus and be free—but that all of us have a sense of sacrifice. When we locked down over Christmas and New Year, this sacrifice was critical to ensure that so many other people right around the country were able to enjoy their Christmases without being separated from their families, while so many families in the area that I represent on the northern beaches found themselves separated.
We do not ask for equivalency. We simply want people to know that we happily make these sacrifices. We gave up these vaccines. We ensured that, when there was an area of concern at Woolworths in Glenrose, in the southern suburb of Belrose, we didn't have 50 per cent or indeed 75 per cent of people getting tested; everyone got tested. Indeed, some people got tested twice, so much so that the testing rate in Belrose is 107 per cent. At one point, there were so many people getting tested in Belrose that it was equivalent to the rest of the state combined. These are the sacrifices we made and they're the ones we'll continue to make.
Climate Change
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (19:40): [by video link] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released its long-awaited report on the physical science basis of climate change. The science is in, and it's a red alarm for humanity. Over 230 scientists from around the world have set out in incredible detail the terrifying science of our warming earth. It is hurtling towards warming of 1.5 degrees, with estimates that we may reach crucial thresholds as early as 2030. Australia is vulnerable to fluctuations of climate. It's already warming at 1.4 degrees.
So what does that 1.5 degrees mean to us? This report sets out that, for every point of a degree of warming it worsens, consequences will follow. Climate change is not linear; it's exponential. As we reach 1.5 degrees and exceed it, we will experience worse climate extremes and get dangerously closer to triggering climate tipping points. In Australia, we will experience an even greater frequency of droughts, floods, fires, coastal erosion, torrential rains and storms. Every community will pay the price through lives lost, infrastructure destroyed and livelihoods devastated.
The report warns that events that were occurring only once in 100 years will occur every year by the end of the century. In fact, these events are happening now. It was evident in the Black Summer bushfires in 2019 and, similarly, the growing severity of the east-coast lows in New South Wales—something my community in Warringah knows very well. In the Northern Hemisphere this past summer, wildfires have devastated parts of Canada, and these parts should not burn. We've had fires in Greece and Turkey following record temperatures and severe drought. We've had heatwaves and people dying. We've had floods in Germany and Belgium wiping out entire villages.
In Warringah, survey after survey shows that climate change is the number one issue in every corner of my electorate. In every age group people are crying out for federal action on this issue. Yet the Prime Minister, in his survey of the electorate of Cook, does not include climate change or even the environment in general in his list of the top 10 issues people can select from to be concerned about. That should tell every Australian that he is not bothered to act on climate change.
In response to the IPCC report, the Prime Minister and the member for Hume have had the temerity to claim that the government is leading the way on climate change. But it's all spin and accounting trickery disguising inaction. Despite yesterday's news they are still reading from the same script, intent on misleading the Australian public. Worse still, the government is determined to take Australia backwards, subsidising the extension of fossil fuel use over a rapid transition to existing technologies.
At a time when the International Energy Agency is telling us there can be no more coal, gas or oil projects, the Morrison government is funding gas fracking in the Beetaloo Basin and spending billions of Australian taxpayer money on gas projects that the market won't touch. The Morrison gas obsession goes so far as to consider offshore drilling for oil and gas, with extraction off the coast from Sydney to Newcastle in an area called PEP 11. The Minister for the Environment is more interested in stopping the Great Barrier Reef from being listed as endangered and appealing a court judgement imposing a duty of care on her to protect children from climate change than actually protecting the environment and doing something about it. Surely the IPCC draws a line in the sand. This must stop.
There is hope and there are solutions, but it does require shifting away from the political weaponising of climate change that has gone on for far too long. I agree with the words that the Liberal New South Wales minister for the environment, Matt Kean, said today. 'We need a new brand of politics here. For too long the politics of division have held us back not only from taking action on climate change, but from being world leaders on doing so, and embracing our economic opportunity.' If the Prime Minister is not capable of showing that leadership, of embracing this moment, then he should step aside, and I call on someone from the coalition frontbench to step up to this task. We need to work together in the nation's interest. The member for Indi has proposed the Australian Local Power Agency Bill; I've proposed a climate change act. It is time we act on this challenge.
National Library of Australia
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (19:45): [by video link] I want to thank the House for the privilege of serving on the Council of the National Library of Australia for nearly five years as this chamber's representative. I have always wanted to serve on the National Library council. I regard the Library as one of Australia's truly great institutions.
I can't remember when I first visited the National Library, but I was amazed that anyone could walk in off the street and ask for access to almost anything within its vast collection and, within a few moments, be able to hold the item in their hand. What a democracy we live in, where accessing the cultural heritage of our nation is the right of everyone. With the expansion of digitisation, we are further democratising that heritage.
In 1988 I published my first article in an academic journal as a result of research from the Library's collection and the knowledgeable librarians who helped me locate materials. In 2002 I spent a week in the manuscript collection, lost in the papers of Sir Robert Menzies and Billy McMahon, among others. It was here I first met the Library's outstanding Director-General, Marie-Louise Ayres, who was then in charge of that collection.
The Library is something of which all Australians should be proud. We're more likely to think of Olympic athletes than libraries as being world beating, but the National Library is the Emma McKeon of Australia's cultural institutions. The Library is a world leader in digitisation and digital preservation. For 25 years it has been a pioneer in creating and collecting Australia's web archive, the world's first fully searchable public web archive. The Library has been the glue that has bound Australia's culture and heritage together, collaborating with and hosting the collections of nearly a thousand partners: libraries, archives, galleries, museums, historical societies and universities, from Australia's biggest cities to our smallest towns. The Library has worked with state libraries to create the national edeposit service, a single national service allowing Australian publishers to fulfil their legal obligations, keeping Australian's published heritage safe and providing access to those items.
People often think of the Library as that grand neoclassical building on Lake Burley Griffin, but most of its users will never visit that building. Through Trove, more than 30 million people around Australia and across the world use the Library's collection each year. Trove is a key part of Australia's soft-power diplomacy, displaying our vibrant, open, democratic, pluralist culture to the world. The Library is a major digital enterprise, with a digital collection of 2.6 petabytes—literally billions of files.
During my time on the council, the Library launched a campaign to raise $30 million over 10 years to digitise the most impactful parts of that collection. The fundraising is tracking ahead of schedule. Major gifts include $1 million from Jane Hemstritch to digitise Australia's entire collection of almanacs, and $1 million from the Susan and Isaac Wakil Foundation to digitising important parts of the performing arts collection, like the papers of Dame Nellie Melba.
The Library's oral history collection has 55,000 hours of analogue material now digitised, from the voices of eminent Australians to those of the stolen generations; from those pursuing disappearing occupations like mutton birders to those in disappearing industries like the car industry. Last year I visited the National Library's oral history collection of people who lived in my community during the Spanish flu. The vast physical collection laid end to end would stretch from Canberra to Sydney.
If the War Memorial is the keeper of our military flame then surely the National Library of Australia is the keeper of our civic flame. The Library has no politics. Its job is to collect Australia, warts and all—not to judge, but to collect. It's the one institution that houses the journal of Captain Cook and the papers of Eddie Mabo; the papers of Liberal prime ministers like Sir Robert Menzies and Labor prime ministers like Andrew Fisher; the papers of Enid Lyons and Dorothy Tangney; the papers of heroes like Sir John Monash and the papers of the perjurer Arthur Orton. The Library is us. It's a place where the great cross-section of Australia is recorded: writers, artists, statesmen, economists, jurists, soldiers, public servants, scientists, business people and activists; the famous and the not so well known. It's up to the public to use and interpret the materials as they see fit. The Library's role is merely to preserve and collect.
I want to take a moment to acknowledge the amazing and always helpful staff at the National Library, led by Marie-Louise Ayres, as well as my colleagues on the council led by Ryan Stokes and then Brett Mason. In opening the Library in 1968, John Gorton said:
"A great library contains the diary of the human race". This library … will keep that diary up to date for us to study the world's Todays, as well as its Yesterdays, and … perhaps enable us to be the more wise in seeking to shape the world's Tomorrows.
That is what the Library has always done, and long may it continue to do so.
Climate Change
Ms PAYNE (Canberra) (19:50): This week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, released its sixth assessment report. This is the most comprehensive climate report ever released, produced by the world's most authoritative body on climate science, and its findings are deeply concerning. It is yet more evidence of the cost of the eight years of inaction by the Liberal-National party government, and that it's past time for this government to stop spinning and start taking action on this global crisis.
The new report found that, even under its most ambitious scenario, which the world is failing to stick to, global warming will likely hit 1.5 degrees Celsius by about 2035. On our current trajectory, we are likely to hit 1.5 degrees of warming in about 2030. This is in the context of, in 2015, the world agreeing to work together to limit warming to 1.5 degrees. Clearly, we are failing.
Globally, warming has now reached about 1.1 degrees since industrialisation, according to the hundreds of scientists and governments that make up the IPCC. Here in Australia, warming has already reached 1.4 degrees, and the report said that these impacts will have particular relevance to Australia. Sea levels around Australia, which have already risen higher than the average, will continue to rise. Fires will get worse and more frequent, and fire seasons will last longer. Heavy rainfall and river floods are projected to worsen across Australasia, and droughts will also worsen. Australians are already seeing these impacts, and I don't need to remind anyone in Canberra and my region of the Black Summer bushfires of 2019-2020.
The new report was 'a code red for humanity', said the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. He said:
The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation are choking our planet and putting billions of people at immediate risk.
… … …
This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels, before they destroy our planet …
He said:
The viability of our societies depends on leaders from government, business and civil society uniting behind policies, actions and investments that will limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Yet our Prime Minister's response to this has been no change to the government's current policy—that is, inaction. Instead, they have merely said that they would 'preferably' like to get to net zero by 2050. It's not even a commitment. And this is the bare minimum that countries around the world are committing to, and the mounting evidence, including this report, is showing that we actually need to get there a lot sooner than that.
How will we explain this inaction to our children? How will we explain that we knew about this? We knew these impacts were coming and we did nothing. We allowed this to become a matter of politics—and, for this government, a matter of spin. This is about science. This should be above debate. But, within the Liberal and National party room, they are still having a debate around the science. Let's not forget that very recently they changed the Deputy Prime Minister of this country because some in that party room were worried about committing to net zero by 2050. What is perhaps worse is that the government continue to say that they are taking action when they are not, and they reiterated that in question time today. We are not taking action; we have been ranked last of 200 countries for our climate action. Under this government, Australia is becoming an embarrassment on the world stage, a backwater of ignorance and denial and inaction.
Labor is the only party of government that has ever delivered serious action on climate change and ever will, and an Albanese government will be no different. We are already making the plans and announcing the policies that will enable Australia to become a renewable energy superpower, and we know that good climate policy is good jobs policy. Under the former Labor government emissions fell by 14 per cent, real GDP increased by 17 per cent and employment rose by nine per cent. This is a great opportunity for Australia, but this is also action that we need to take now for the future of our planet; otherwise, all our other aims will become redundant.
Joondalup: Infrastructure
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (19:55): Local economic development within Moore continues to be one of my priorities for my electorate, even more so now as we restore and rebuild the economy from COVID-19, creating skilled jobs for our residents locally. There are many opportunities to partner with local government in promoting the City of Joondalup both as a destination and regional CBD. We have the opportunity to foster strategic economic development in order to attract a range of modern high-technology industries to the northern suburbs of Perth, to establish the operations in the Joondalup city centre in close proximity to leading higher education facilities located in the Joondalup Learning Precinct. Industries such as advanced manufacturing, research and development, medical technology, software development and cybersecurity would support a skilled workforce and be a perfect fit for the Joondalup city centre.
Joondalup is more than just a retail and hospitality precinct. It has the potential to develop into an advanced technological centre and compete with the best in the world in terms of innovation. The digital economy presents enormous opportunities for our workforce. Currently there are a number of vacant sites which are suitable for constructing buildings and facilities suitable to accommodate these advanced industries. With a strong cybersecurity research centre based at Edith Cowan University and the Western Australian Police Academy located on the adjoining campus, Joondalup has the ability to become a leader in cyber law enforcement operations of the future. This would be conducive to a federal government agency decentralising and relocating its operations to Joondalup to create a high-tech law enforcement and cybersecurity precinct.
As a local government, the City of Joondalup plays a proactive role in attracting modern and advanced industries to invest and establish operations in our area, through the work of its economic development unit led by Nashid Chowdhury. We look forward to the upcoming planned visit by the Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts to discuss the potential to advance City Deals and federal support for our regional city. Furthermore, the proximity of Joondalup city centre to the Neerabup Industrial Area—less than 10 kilometres away—allows it to evolve into a service hub for a vast commercial and industrial area of 1,000 hectares, supporting up to 20,000 jobs when fully developed. Businesses in Joondalup have the opportunity to provide professional banking and financial services required by firms in Neerabup as well as catering for the retail and hospitality needs.
The federal government has recently delivered essential road infrastructure such as the extension of the Mitchell Freeway, the widening of Wanneroo Road and grade-separated bridges at the intersection of Joondalup Drive and Ocean Reef Road to improve connectivity between Joondalup and the Neerabup Industrial Area. There are two priority major road projects which I am campaigning to secure funding for this election. The first is the opportunity to improve connectivity with the Wangara commercial and industrial area by connecting Whitfords Avenue and the realigned Gnangara Road. The Western Australian Liberal Party committed $10 million towards this vital project during the last state election. Unfortunately this fell on deaf ears, with the McGowan Labor government committing no funds.
Connecting the residential suburbs of Moore with the vast industrial powerhouse of Wangara will be the catalyst for further economic development within the City of Joondalup as local residents are able to commute more easily to work, and businesses based in the Joondalup area are able to provide goods and services to customers in the Wangara commercial industrial area. Secondly, the grade separation of the Reid Highway with a bridge at the intersection of Erindale Road will help connect Moore to the commercial industrial areas of Balcatta, Malaga and beyond via the Tonkin Highway and the NorthLink project. This will remove a major point of traffic congestion and promote economic development. Attracting advanced industries to Joondalup to build a strong local economy which supports highly skilled jobs for local residents remains one of the main priorities for my electorate.
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Sukkar to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to taxation, industry codes and family law, and for related purposes. (Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 6) Bill 2021)
Dr Gillespie to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Charter of the United Nations Act 1945, and for related purposes. (Charter of the United Nations Amendment Bill 2021)