The SPEAKER ( Hon. Andrew Wallace ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces
The SPEAKER (12:01): In the final sitting week of 2021 the Independent Review into Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplaces was published by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins. Today, on the first sitting day of 2022, we deliver this statement on behalf of the parliamentary cross-party leadership task force recommended by Commissioner Jenkins and as a reflection of the parliament.
We acknowledge the unacceptable history of workplace bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. This issue is of the greatest importance and is the responsibility of all people who work in this place. Any bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault is unacceptable and wrong. We say, 'Sorry.' Every workplace should be safe and respectful.
This place and its members are committed to bringing about lasting and meaningful change to both culture and practice within our workplaces. We have failed to provide this in the past. We today declare our personal and collective commitment to make the changes required. We will aspire, as we should, to set the standard for our nation.
We thank all of those who participated in the Jenkins review and acknowledge everyone who came forward to tell us of their experiences. We also acknowledge the many others who could not or did not participate but who may have experienced misconduct. We know that your experiences have had profound and far-reaching impacts on your lives. We have listened and heard you, and we accept your calls for change.
This parliament should serve as a model workplace for our nation. Only by creating the best workplace will this parliament attract the best people our country has to offer, and only by attracting the best our country has to offer and by listening to the communities we represent will we deliver the high standards that our country deserves.
Parliamentary workers feel pride in working for their country, and the privilege and honour of making a difference for the Australian people. However, for far too many, it has not been safe or respectful.
The Jenkins review proposes an ambitious program of reform to ensure Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces meet the highest standards. We are fully committed to working across the parliament to implement all of these recommendations within the time frames proposed by Commissioner Jenkins.
We have started to act. Last year, we established a new independent complaints process and began providing trauma-informed support for people who have experienced serious incidents working in the parliament. Members, senators and staff have undertaken professional workplace training.
Parliamentarians must uphold the highest standards and be accountable for delivering required actions. We know that cultural change has to come from the top—it has to be role modelled and championed by all of us.
While we know we cannot undo the harm that has already been done, we are committed to acknowledging the mistakes of the past and continuing to build safe and respectful workplaces. I give the call to the Prime Minister.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (12:06): Mr Speaker, I thank you for your statement of acknowledgement. You were elected in this place to be the voice of all of us here, and I thank you for speaking on behalf of all of us with one voice today here in this parliament. I hope that voice is heard loud and clear right across our country, as indeed it will be in the other place.
I rise to enthusiastically support this acknowledgement and to recognise all of those who are why we are here today and making this acknowledgement. I particularly want to acknowledge Ms Brittany Higgins, whose experience—and, more importantly, courage—is the reason we are all here today, and I want to thank her for that. I also want to recognise all of those who have contributed to the Jenkins review. Some 1,700 individuals contributed. Nine hundred and thirty-five participated in surveys from right across this building, not just in parliamentary staff but in media galleries—those who work in and call this place their place of work. Four hundred and ninety interviews were conducted. Eleven focus groups were undertaken.
This review speaks of a longstanding culture—generations of culture—in this place, and in the building before it, of bullying and harassment that has occurred over this time, and a power imbalance, over that time, that has been exploited, and that exploitation, abuse, bullying and harassment have played themselves out through terrible, traumatic and harrowing experiences: the harassment of staff, particularly female staff, as well as the harassment of female members and senators. Over many decades, an ecosystem, a culture, was perpetuated where bullying, abuse, harassment and, in some cases, even violence became normalised.
This has to change, it is changing and I believe it will change, so that those who come into this place as members and those who come to work in this place can have that confidence, as every Australian should, in any workplace, anywhere in this country, as these issues are not unique to this place, as we all know. Parliament can't be a place of cruelty; nor can it be a place where incivility towards each other is somehow proof of some strength. This chamber in this building is a place where ideas are tested—a place where the rigours of debate hold government and lawmakers to account. And that's appropriate. It is a place of scrutiny. Never before, I think, has this place been under such scrutiny when it comes to these issues, and that is only right.
It must also be a place, as the Speaker has said on our behalf, of the highest standards—a place where any Australian can aspire to work and know they can work safely. As one participant in the Jenkins review put it, a culture which is all about power doesn't have to be a culture which is about the abuse of power. Power is about service, and it should be exercised with humility and love, as we were reminded this morning at the church service to open this year.
Commissioner Kate Jenkins has laid the challenge out before us, and I thank Commissioner Jenkins for her tremendous work and counsel on all of these issues. She said:
This is an opportunity for the leaders of our country to transform Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces to become what they already should be: workplaces where expected standards of behaviour are modelled, championed and enforced, where respectful behaviour is rewarded and in which any Australian, no matter their gender, race, sexual orientation, disability status or age, feels safe and welcome to contribute.
That is our task. She has set it out very clearly. We must hold ourselves to this standard—all of us. I hesitate in calling it a new standard because that suggests that, somehow, it should not have been the standard previously. This is a standard that should be outside of time, because, by taking an oath or affirmation at this very table, you are a leader, in whatever role you serve, and you owe just and best judgement—to the highest efforts—to the Australian people.
We've understood in this place the power of an apology to bring healing and to bring change, and I am proud that this is a chamber in which we have done this on so many occasions. I believe Australia is somewhat unique in this regard. We don't shy, nor have we sought to silence the valid and just complaints of people, because there is fear about electoral consequences. I am sorry. We are sorry. I say sorry to Ms Higgins for the terrible things that took place here. The place that should have been a place of safety and contribution turned out to be a nightmare. But I am sorry for far more than that. I'm sorry for all of those who came before Ms Higgins and endured the same. But she had the courage to stand, and so here we are.
So we are sorry for all of these things, and, in saying so, each of us take accountability for changing these things. To those who have perpetuated such bullying, abuse and violence: the light will come to those behaviours, as it must. But it will follow and respect the rule of law in this country. It will proceed on the basis of fairness and justice, in accordance with the rules that are in place in our country, and it will be done in the proper way, which I'm sure all in this place would agree with. Justice should come, and it should always be delivered under the rule of law.
Every single Australian has the right to be safe at work, and yet it is clear that practical and cultural changes are necessary to make our parliamentary workplaces safer. This acknowledgement is a marker. It is yet another step. It is a moment of change. It is a commitment by each and every one of us—wearing no partisan hats—as parliamentarians, employers and colleagues, to change this culture and this ecosystem. It is a determination to make this building and its many subsidiaries places that, in the future, embody, in every form, the values, hopes and aspirations of the Australian people—places of heart and soul, where our humanity is not lost, diminished or harmed because of what is the adversarial nature of our political system. Sorry is only the start. That is our promise to those who are here today and to those watching across Australia. Those of us who are here now know we have that opportunity and we must—and we can, and we will—do better. I am determined that we deliver the outcomes of the Jenkins review and make our Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces safer and more respectful for everyone.
The parliament has, as you said, Mr Speaker, already commenced that work, even before the Jenkins review was handed down. We're working together towards the implementation of all 28 recommendations. This past week, the multiparty leadership task force convened for the first time, chaired by Ms Kerry Hartland. Whether it is this acknowledgement today or the laws that will be introduced into parliament this week, we are working together to change this place for the better. We have extended the funding for the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service so work can commence on its expansion and so it can continue to be made available to staff and parliamentarians, alongside extra funding for the parliamentary support line. I want this building to be a place where young Australians and young women in particular can follow their dreams and can live out their beliefs and not have them crushed by brutality and the misuse of power. That's what I'm dedicated to.
We will come back to this work many, many times in the years ahead, because this work will take many years. It will be ongoing but we must not backslide. We owe it to all of those who work in this building. We owe it to all of those who strive to work in this building in the future. We owe it to the Australian people, whom we all have the good grace and great privilege to serve.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (12:16): Set the standard, just three words that say so much. This report by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Kate Jenkins is a reminder of our obligation as a parliament to lead by example. It catalogues in personal testimony and shocking statistics our failure to do so. It is also a demand that we act right now.
We owe a debt of gratitude to everyone in this building as well as every former staff member who stepped up to share their experiences of workplace bullying and misconduct, of sexual harassment and, most traumatically, of sexual assault. I also acknowledge particularly the women who bravely stood up and called out a culture of mistreatment, which brought this issue into the light. I particularly pay tribute to the courage of Brittany Higgins, who's with us today. You have torn through a silence that has acted as the life support system for the most odious of status quos. To describe your experiences is to relive them. I say to everyone who took part: that took a level of courage that you should never have needed to show, but you did, and we thank you for it. We also acknowledge everyone who has experienced misconduct but could not take part. Indeed, there are many who are not ready to speak and perhaps never will be. I hope that you can take some heart from knowing that this very institution that failed you is at last acknowledging your hurt. Most importantly, we are sorry. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I am sorry.
We are committing to change. The Jenkins report, with its piercing honesty about the treatment of women and men both, has exposed a damaged culture, and no word any of us says in here is worth a thing if it does not lead to action. We can make a difference, but it will take real and sustained effort to create the lasting cultural change that we need. I believe we can do it. I know that we have to. How we can start doing that is by working across the parliament to implement every single recommendation of the Jenkins report. That is the absolute minimum we should be doing for the staff who are in so many ways the fuel in the engine of parliament.
Staff members are drawn to work in politics for many of the same reasons that parliamentarians are: belief in their party's principles, belief in those they work for and belief in the power of the political process to create change and to make lives better. That work should be valued and recognised, even if it is behind the scenes. Staff and their contributions are not in the spotlight, but lower visibility is not a licence to lesser treatment. No-one deserves to feel unsafe or disrespected in any workplace, let alone our national parliament. Let us be the example for Australia that the national parliament ought to be.
The Jenkins report was the culmination of a watershed year in Australian politics, society and gender relations. While the report concerns itself with this place, it is part of something bigger: an overdue national reckoning. Around this time last year, women across the country came together to call out the inequalities of gender and power that permeate their lives each day. Among its many manifestations was the Women's March4Justice right across Australia, including one in front of Parliament House, which I attended. There was something especially momentous about that march within sight of this very building, where revelations about a culture gone wrong proved to be such a catalyst for a national movement. However, we cannot ask the people we represent to make change without also making real and lasting change in this very building. We must, to put it simply, walk the talk.
We cannot attract the best people to this place if we don't strive to be the best ourselves, and without the best people we cannot achieve the best outcomes for the Australian people. Nor can we leave this work just to women. These aren't only women's issues. They belong to us all. Men have to step up and be allies in both word and deed. We have no excuse to wait for yet another wake-up call. This has been made clear to us by the extraordinary examples of not just Brittany Higgins but Grace Tame and others, who have found the strength to lift the weight of their own experience and hold it high until no-one could look away. In doing so, they have lightened the burden by that crucial fraction for so many others.
Let us work together, guided by respect, inclusion and collaboration. That's how we will build a better future for the women and men of Australia. We cannot undo what is already done, but if we have the will we can break out of this cycle for good, together. A lot of staff members have been failed over the years, but they still had the grace to show us the path forward. Thanks to them, to those members of parliament who worked on the cross-parliamentary committee and to Commissioner Jenkins we have no excuse not to take that path. That's surely something that this House of Representatives can unite on as we move forward.
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (12:23): I rise to endorse the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and the views held by so many people who have appeared here today. Parliament House should be the safest workplace in the country. Unfortunately, it isn't, and most certainly it wasn't in the past.
In response to the brave voices speaking out about their experiences, the government commissioned a review, led by Kate Jenkins, into Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces. In total, 1,700 individuals participated in the Jenkins review; 490 people were interviewed and 302 submissions were provided. Those 490 people, no doubt, were a subset of so many more who could've also provided their views of this place both now and in the past. Those 490 people believed that they had a reason to speak out. Those 490 people believed that it was worthwhile making a statement, going out of their comfort zone, to express what they believed needed to change about this parliament.
The experiences people shared as part of the Jenkins review are truly disturbing and confronting. These experiences have no place in any workplace, let alone our parliament. I thank every individual who participated in the review. Your experiences have been heard and will be acted on. I join both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in saying sorry and acknowledging that we will do better.
I'm privileged to represent the people of New England and, more broadly, Australian people as an elected representative. We are in a unique position in that we can bring about change for the better, and there is no easier place in which to bring about change than the place where we work. With this privilege, all sides of politics have a responsibility that we must rise to and ensure that the horrific experiences, in this building, of many people are never repeated—because of the brave women who have spoken out on this issue of culture and their experiences in this building, about which they have confided in people so that something can be done about it. By doing this we are taking merely the first step to fix the culture and the broken system, to provide a workplace that is safe.
There are people who are watching here today—and I acknowledge Ms Higgins—but there are also those who are watching from home, from offices in this building and from a whole range of places, making sure that we make our first step in what are going to be many steps. The statement of acknowledgement is the first recommendation in the Jenkins review. There are 27 other recommendations as part of this review. Together we are committed to make Parliament House the safest workplace in the country and a reflection to our nation of a model workplace for us all to work in.
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:26): Thank you, Speaker, for your statement. I want to record the Greens' support for it and our commitment to working for the full implementation of the Set the standard recommendations. Around half of the staff in parliamentary workplaces have experienced harassment, bullying or assault during their time here—half. We should all be appalled by that. For First Nations people, people of colour, people with disabilities, the harassment and disrespect can be even worse. The commissioner heard that even raising issues of racism or the intersectionality of racism and sexism could provoke an aggressive response. As the thousands and thousands of women and allies who took to the streets to march for justice said: 'Enough. This has to stop.'
There are many things on which people in this place do not agree, but on this issue we must be unified. There cannot be more blame-shifting and glossing-over and waiting until later. The blame is ours. The shame is ours. I am so sorry. The toxic culture that has been allowed to fester in parliament, documented in appalling detail by Commissioner Jenkins in Set the standard, must end, and that will only happen if we work together to end it. As one of the participants interviewed by the Human Rights Commission said: 'This is parliament. You should set the standard for workplace culture, not the floor of what culture should be.' We are sorry and we have to do better, every single one of us, every single day.
It's been nearly 12 months since Brittany Higgins bravely shared her experience, peeling back the curtain on the callous disregard that so many women, so many people, have endured for so long. Hers was not the first story. Rachelle Miller, Chelsey Potter and countless others had spoken out before. Brittany Higgins's story was not even the most recent story. But hers was the final straw, and this parliament must commit to making it the last story that someone has to tell. Brittany Higgins, Rachelle Miller, Chelsey Potter, Josie Coles, Emma Husar, Julia Banks and so many others shared their stories with Kate Jenkins because they felt they had to—to reveal the toxic culture, the sexism, the bullying, the lack of support, the 'he said, she said' mentality, the cover-ups. They did this in the hope that something would change. They chose to speak up for themselves and for those who aren't able to. We know from the report that the vast majority of staff who have been harassed in this place have made no formal report, because they had no faith that anything would be done. We have heard and we have listened. We must keep listening.
We must make sure that current and former staff and affected survivors are involved in these reforms in a meaningful way and feel supported to tell us when we're not doing enough. We must work to support those who have suffered, who are still suffering, from their experience. We must maintain a robust, independent, confidential complaints process that people can trust. We must work to put in place a code of conduct that not only sets the standard but makes sure that there are consequences when those standards are not met.
We also need to tackle the lack of full representation in our parliament. The culture in this place will change when decisions are being made by people with different views and experiences. We must work for a more diverse and inclusive parliament that better represents the community: more women, people of colour, people with disability, LGBTIQ+ people, and people with diverse backgrounds.
I want to thank Commissioner Jenkins again for the incredible work she and her team have done in setting out what we need to do. We owe it to everyone who took part and to everyone in this place, everyone in this country, to show some leadership and get it done. I also want to acknowledge that this is work that needs to be done in all workplaces around the country. We must also all keep working for a positive duty on employers to ensure that every worker in every workplace is safe and respected.
Ultimately, men have failed—failed to act with respect, failed to act with basic human decency, failed to listen, and failed to make the changes necessary when asked. It is men who need to change their behaviours, and we are committed to that.
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (12:31): Mr Speaker, I rise on behalf of the crossbench members to speak in support of the statement of acknowledgement you provided to this House today, a statement initiated by the Jenkins Report Leadership Taskforce, of which I am a member. Importantly, it's a bipartisan task force, to ensure that we all engage and ensure a better and safer workplace going forward. Thank you to Kerri Hartland, who is chairing the task force. She is here today.
Mr Speaker, the statement you made for the House seeks to acknowledge the harm caused by bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces and articulates a commitment to action and shared responsibility. As has been noted, issuing this statement is the first recommendation of the Jenkins review, Set the standard, an inquiry established just under a year ago, on 5 March 2021. Its report was presented to the parliament just nine months later, on 30 November. I am pleased that today, the first sitting day of 2022, the statement has been delivered. That urgency is warranted and important.
Working for the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia should be an immense source of pride, excitement and achievement. It should be the pinnacle of one's career—a place where ideas are explored and debated; where advice, knowledge and expertise are appreciated and valued; where democracy is upheld and celebrated; and where individuals are respected and safe. Sadly, for far too many, their experience has been one of trauma. People have left this place truly broken, careers destroyed, marriages torn apart, young women and men abused and violated, lives devastated. We have listened and we have heard you, and we are sorry. I am sorry.
We are all familiar with the damning findings of the Jenkins review. One in three people currently working in parliamentary workplaces have experienced some form of sexual harassment whilst working here. Over half of all people currently in these workplaces have experienced at least one incident of bullying, sexual harassment or actual or attempted sexual assault. That is truly deeply shocking. Some who took part in this inquiry have endured years of mental and sometimes physical anguish. On behalf of the crossbench, I say, 'We hear you and we thank you for so bravely stepping forward and detailing your experiences. Because of your bravery, this place will be a better workplace for others.' In particular, I wish to acknowledge and thank the brave women who join us in the gallery today: Brittany Higgins, Rachelle Miller, Josie Coles, Chelsey Potter, Chanel Contos. And I acknowledge that many others may also have wished to be here today. These women have shown incredible bravery in speaking out and, in doing so, have empowered others. Their actions have led to the instigation of the Jenkins review, which saw hundreds more step forward. We must not forget that speaking up often comes at a very high personal price. It comes at a price of intrusion into your lives with public scrutiny, and I acknowledge the stress and anxiety that many of you have been under since telling of your experiences. Please know that we understand this is not easy, but it is so important. Similarly, there are many people who, for various reasons, chose not to take part in the review. As the statement of acknowledgement says, we know that, for you too, your experiences have had profound and far-reaching impacts on your lives. So, to you, I say: we see you too, and we will not let you down.
Why is the statement so important? Because, for too long, those who have been bullied, assaulted or victimised have felt ignored, dismissed and moved on. They have felt powerless. This statement today gives them a voice. It formally acknowledges their experiences and the long-lasting impacts of what had happened to them. It's an acknowledgement from all the members of this place of our responsibility to ensure that we provide a gold standard workplace where everyone feels respected and safe. It's ultimately through our actions that we can show our commitment to changing this workplace.
On behalf of the crossbench, I pledge to do everything in my power to ensure that all 28 recommendations of the Set the standard report are fully implemented. As Commissioner Kate Jenkins herself wrote:
The recommendations … are mutually reinforcing and complementary and therefore should not be cherry picked.
Some will be more straightforward than others, and some are more far-reaching than others. The preparation and adoption of codes and standards of conduct for parliamentarians and their staff is urgently needed. As the vast majority of Australian workplaces have codes of conduct in place, it's extraordinary that this place, of all places, is yet to have one.
As the 46th Parliament, we stand at a fork in the road. We can choose to act with integrity and change this place and the way it has operated for too long. The course of action we must take is clear from the Jenkins review. As Commissioner Jenkins sums up:
The challenge of effectively preventing and responding to bullying, sexual harassment and sexual assault in these workplaces is significant. The problem is not, however, inevitable, or intractable. There is momentum for change and the proposed Framework for Action in this Report sets out a clear path to ensure that—
these workplaces—
are safe and respectful, uphold the standing of the Parliament and are a worthy reflection of the community that they serve.
Whilst there is much more work to be done to build an equal and safe society, one where women and men are safe, respected and valued, we can start here. So I commend the statement to the House as the first step in raising the standards, of showing the parliament, our communities and our hardworking staff the respect they so richly deserve.
DOCUMENTS
COVID-19: Parliamentary Proceedings
Presentation
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (12:39): I present the following agreement for members to contribute remotely to parliamentary proceedings.
The document read as follows—
This agreement is made pursuant to the Resolution adopted by the House of Representatives on 23 March 2020, entitled Special provisions for human biosecurity emergency period, for the upcoming sittings of the House of Representatives from Tuesday, 8 February 2022 to Thursday, 17 February 2022.
(1) Members not physically present in Parliament House may participate in proceedings of the House of Representatives Chamber or the Federation Chamber, as provided by this agreement, if:
(a) they participate via the official parliamentary video facility only; and
(b) the Speaker is satisfied the Member is unable to physically attend Parliament due to reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic;
(2) Reasons to be provided to allow the Speaker to make a decision in accordance with 1(b) above should be provided by the Leader of the House to the Speaker for a Government Member, the Manager of Opposition Business to the Speaker for an Opposition Member and directly to the Speaker for a non-aligned Member. The reasons should address the personal circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic that have made it essentially impossible, unreasonably impracticable, or would give rise to an unreasonable risk for the Member to physically attend Parliament;
(3) The standing orders apply except as affected by this agreement;
(4) Members participating in proceedings by this agreement must use the official parliamentary video facility and be present at either an Electorate Office or a Commonwealth Parliament Office;
(5) Members present by the official parliamentary video facility may speak only after being recognised by the Chair:
(a) for the purposes of making a speech; or
(b) to ask or answer a question at Question Time;
(6) Members present by the official parliamentary video facility may not:
(a) vote or be counted for quorum;
(b) move or second any motion;
(c) move or second any amendment to a motion or bill;
(d) propose or support a proposal to discuss a matter of public importance;
(e) call for a division; or
(f) call for a quorum to be counted;
(7) Notice is to be provided to the Chair, 15 minutes prior to:
(a) a Member, participating in proceedings by the official parliamentary video facility, seeking to make a speech;
(b) a Member, participating in proceedings by the official parliamentary video facility, seeking to ask a question in Question Time; and
(c) Question Time, by the Leader of the House, indicating whether any Minister will be present during Question Time by the official parliamentary video facility and is therefore available to answer questions;
(8) At the conclusion of a question made through the official parliamentary video facility, the questioner participating in accordance with paragraph 7(b) above shall remain available to seek the call if that member wishes to raise a point of order during the answer; and
(9) Contributions to proceedings made by Members present by the official parliamentary video facility will be recorded in Hansard.
BILLS
Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2021
National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021
Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Remote Engagement Program) Bill 2021
Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2021
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Board and Other Improvements) Bill 2019
Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021
Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 5) Bill 2021
Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Magnitsky-style and Other Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021
Crimes Amendment (Remissions of Sentences) Bill 2021
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2021
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021
Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Assurance of Senate Counting) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Contingency Measures) Bill 2021
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Political Campaigners) Bill 2021
Health Insurance Amendment (Enhancing the Bonded Medical Program and Other Measures) Bill 2021
National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Bill 2021
Telstra Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021
Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Exempting Disability Payments from Income Testing and Other Measures) Bill 2021
Assent
Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The SPEAKER (12:40): I have to report to the House that on 6, 8 and 17 December 2021 I received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating changes in the membership of certain committees. In accordance with standing order 229(b), as the House was not expected to sit for several weeks the appointments became effective on those dates.
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (12:40):
by leave—I move:
That:
(1) Mr Sharma, Mr Simmonds, Dr Webster and Mrs Wicks be appointed members of the Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety on 6 December 2021;
(2) Ms Flint be appointed a member of the Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety on 8 December 2021, and discharged on 21 December 2021 and that, in her place, Ms Hammond be appointed a member of the committee; and
(3) Ms Bell be appointed a member of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs on 17 December 2021.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Religious Discrimination Bill 2021
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The SPEAKER (12:41): Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:41): I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills. I am just going to give my bona fides upfront for this piece of legislation, introduced by the Prime Minister late last year. My children have gone to Catholic schools and I do go to church—not as often as I should, perhaps. In another life, as a teacher, I taught religion in a Catholic school, and when I worked for the Independent Education Union, the union that covers teachers in non-government schools, I did actually take a case to the Anti-Discrimination Commission, where religion was the characteristic that was being discriminated against.
I say that by way of introduction, because this morning we saw the Prime Minister out in front of a church, talking about his legislation and saying that he wants this legislation to bring Australia together. But when he did so, he referred to the Citipointe Christian College, a college in Carindale, in Brisbane—a college where I actually did enterprise bargaining about 20 years ago—and he said:
You're referring to an existing law that was introduced by the Labor Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. That is the Dreyfus law that you're referring to. He put that in place.
I just want to unpack that statement before I turn to the religious discrimination bills. What the Prime Minister was actually referring to was the Sex Discrimination Act. The Prime Minister said he had to bring in the religious discrimination legislation because it was an election commitment. He also made an election commitment, saying—well, he said he going to bring in an integrity commission, yet we don't have legislation in front of us about that. He also said he would bring in legislation that would prohibit LGBTQIA students from being discriminated against in non-government schools. That's not the legislation in front of us. That legislation would be about an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act.
Back when Susan Ryan brought in the Sex Discrimination Act, the only characteristics it referred to were sex, marital status and pregnancy. When the Liberals came to vote on that legislation, I think they actually had a conscience vote, back in 1984 or 1985 or whenever that was. But, in 2013, when the current Prime Minister was a member of the Abbott-led opposition, the Abbott opposition actually let that legislation go through on the voices. Before 2013, the Sex Discrimination Act did not include any protections against discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, so the Labor Party brought in changes supported by those opposite—supported by the current Prime Minister when he was in opposition. Before the change was introduced, there was no prohibition on discrimination against any Australian on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
Basically, before the changes, there was nothing to stop a religious school from discriminating against students on that basis for any reason whatsoever. Because of the changes introduced by the then Attorney-General, Labor's Mark Dreyfus, there is now a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status at the Commonwealth level, subject to a number of exemptions. It's basically more difficult for religious schools to discriminate against students on those grounds, unless they can show that it's done in good faith and in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion. I just wanted to be clear about that because the Prime Minister was being quite deceptive when making that statement out front of the church this morning.
Labor has no problems with legislation that gets rid of discrimination. We know that. I've talked about the Sex Discrimination Act. We know the Racial Discrimination Act was passed by a Labor government. I do commend the Howard government for bringing in the Age Discrimination Act. Labor has a long history of striking treaties and then bringing in state and federal legislation to protect people from discrimination. In fact, early in his time in office, after the long dark years of the National Party and the coalition, Queensland Premier Wayne Goss decided to make it unlawful for Queenslanders to be discriminated against because of their religion. So it was a Labor premier that made those legislative changes way back in 1991. And, just for the sake of those opposite, when I spoke to the human rights commissioner in Queensland, he said that less than one per cent of the cases that come to him are to do with religious discrimination. I'm one of the few people who has actually taken a case to the commission on behalf of someone who was discriminated against because of their religion. So it's not that common. Even though there is a suggestion out there that people are being prevented from practising their faith, that is not the case.
Premier Goss was following in the footsteps of a Western Australian Labor government that had done the same thing back in 1984. Thereafter, a Labor government did the same here in the Australian Capital Territory in 1991. And I do commend the Country Liberal government that followed suit in the Northern Territory in 1992. It was Jim Bacon's Labor government that amended Tasmania's discrimination laws in 1999. It was a Labor government, under the leadership of Premier Steve Bracks, that made law the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 in Victoria. And it was the Rann Labor government that amended South Australia's Equal Opportunity Act in 2009 to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of somebody's religious appearance or dress.
All of that legislation was brought in by Labor governments. The aforementioned actions show clearly that the Australian Labor Party knows that the right to freedom of religion is recognised in international law because of treaties that we've signed and should be legislated domestically. Labor always supports fairness and equality. I particularly say that to my Muslim community, to my Hindu community, to my Buddhist community, to my Jewish community, to my Sikh community—people who particularly wear their faith publicly in the clothes that they wear, their hair or whatever it is where they show their faith. The freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief is absolute and cannot be limited or confined to protect other interests.
As the review by the former Attorney-General, the Ruddock review, noted, 'they cannot be departed from even in times of national emergency' and that in contrast the freedom to manifest religion or belief may be limited in specific circumstances.
But there is consensus from stakeholders, the Attorney-General's Department and both parliamentary committees that looked at this legislation, even though it was rushed over Christmas when many Christian organisations are a little bit busy—and I note that even Prime Minister Morrison noted the same of the bills that were personally introduced by him late last year—that the bills are flawed and seriously need amendment.
The two most contentious provisions are clauses 11 and 12. Why is clause 11 contentious? It is because it's explicitly designed to override state and territory antidiscrimination laws, specifically recent changes to the law made in the state of Victoria and also in Tasmania. As the Law Council of Australia said in their submission:
It departs from orthodox Commonwealth anti-discrimination law, which is generally designed not to exclude or limit the operation of State or Territory law that is capable of operating concurrently with it.
Given its interference in state and territory law, it is extraordinary that the Attorney-General's Department told the Human Rights Committee—and I note that the chair is here. We heard the same evidence. I'm the deputy chair of that committee. This is what the Attorney-General's own department said:
The department did not have meetings with any state or territory government to discuss any part of the Religious Discrimination legislative package between the conclusion of the second exposure draft consultation process and the introduction of the Religious Discrimination legislative package.
The Morrison government made an election commitment in 2019 'to work with the opposition, crossbench and stakeholders in a spirit of bipartisanship' and 'to introduce legislation into the parliament that enjoys broad cross-party support.' They're the government's own words. Yet they failed to consult with the Liberal and Labor state and territory governments. They've fundamentally failed to achieve that modest goal, and it will create confusion and heartache.
Astoundingly, the Attorney-General's Department admitted during the Human Rights Committee process—and during the other hearing—that the bill that was introduced last year by the Prime Minister has at least one serious drafting error and that that error is yet to be corrected.
Clause 12, another contentious clause, which provides that statements of belief are not discrimination, received the most criticism during the committee process. The criticism was broad. The Council on the Ageing told the committee in reference to people contemplating going into aged care:
What there's going to be is a chilling effect on how people fear that going through, because the messages will come down saying, 'Well, actually, they can say what they want to you,' whereas currently they can't.
The Council on the Ageing are speaking up for some of their most vulnerable people.
Some religious organisations were also concerned about the potential adverse impact of clause 12. The Uniting Church in Australia told the committee:
Our reading of clause 12, statements of belief, indicates that people can make a statement in good faith, believing that it is genuinely held within the doctrine, tenet or belief of a religion, and that it doesn't matter whether the religion itself would reject that view. The person can claim that it's a statement of belief and therefore it is held to be protected under this bill. We think that that is quite dangerous.
That's from the Uniting Church.
The Public Affairs Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia told the committee why they're concerned about clause 12 doing harm:
… there is no reason why you need to give that immunity or the ability to override under discrimination legislation. People are still free to make statements of belief, providing they don't do it in a way that discriminates. If you look at where the harm lies, obviously greater harm lies with the person who is being discriminated against, whereas the person who wants to make a statement can do it in a way that is not discriminatory.
Good legislation comes from listening. Good legislation comes from patiently working through the issues, not from making a promise four years ago and then rushing it in at five minutes to midnight. Good legislation does not divide the community.
There are other concerns with the legislation that has been introduced, including whether or not it's constitutionally valid. That's always a good one to get right. This bill is supposed to protect people of faith from religious discrimination, but it will do nothing to protect against the vilification of people who are targeted because of their religious beliefs or activities. I particularly speak to the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Hindu community, the Sikh community—those who wear their faith and are targeted. This protection has been called for over many years. The calls have become more urgent since that shocking Christchurch attack when an Australian terrorist killed 50 people. We know that there has been a rise in Islamophobia and Hinduphobia. Anti-Semitic incidents are on the rise in Australia and the United States—around the world, in fact.
These laws are not being debated today. But the discrimination bills, which are largely uncontroversial, present the parliament with an opportunity to provide people of faith, particularly those of minority faiths, with protection against vilification. The government should work with the Australian Labor Party; the government should work with the state and territory governments, Labor and Liberal; and the government should work with religious stakeholders to address this shortfall in protections for people of faith.
In my remaining time I turn to the idea that we would let schools like Citipointe target people because of who they are, because of God's plan for that child. I'm fundamentally committed to protecting children in Australia. As a teacher, as a lawyer, as a politician, I have devoted my life to making sure that children's lives are safer and better. There is this idea that a contract targeting children and based on some misguided interpretation of the Bible could be foisted on parents to say, 'You must make a decision.' I've spoken to the people running Brisbane Christian College in my electorate, and they made it very clear that they love and protect all of their students. Children should not be targeted—trans children, intersex children, any children—when we know that God made them all. I find it utterly repugnant that a person would use a contract to beat up a child, saying, 'I know God's plan and I will enforce harm upon that child and that family.'
I know that the leaders of the Australian Christian Lobby and others have been strangely silent when it comes to this, and there has been some crab-walking away from Citipointe Christian College. I would ask them to make sure that they always protect the children that walk through their gates.
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (12:57): I have the privilege of chairing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which considered this important package of bills: the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. The committee heard from a variety of experts and lobby groups who all expressed their thoughts on the bills, and I thank each and every one of them for engaging with the committee and making their views and voices heard.
This legislative package seeks to fill a void in Australia's human rights framework. This parliament rightly passed the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984, the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 and the Age Discrimination Act in 2004. What is missing from this list is a religion discrimination act. This is despite the longstanding recognition of freedom of religion in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UN special rapporteur has emphasised the mutually reinforcing nature of the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, stating:
Freedom of expression is necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of the freedoms of thought, conscience, and religion or belief … One cannot be fully enjoyed without the other or in the absence of the right to privacy, freedom of association and peaceful assembly. This suggests that the two rights are not only interdependent, but also exist in a legal continuum with myriad other rights.
The European Court of Human Rights has also observed that protection of religious groups is necessary for the realisation of the individual right to freedom of religion. The Commonwealth must step in to rectify the situation. Federal protection is lacking and the current patchwork of state laws does not protect every Australian, with New South Wales and South Australia lacking any framework and other states missing the mark with theirs. The need for such a framework has been well documented, beginning with the religious freedom review, chaired by Philip Ruddock.
People of faith and particularly those of minority religions are being discriminated against because of their faith, with no recourse under Commonwealth law. The primary purpose of these bills is to protect ordinary people of faith from discrimination as they go about their daily lives. The bills also protect those who experience discrimination because they do not adhere to any faith or religious belief. The bills will protect against direct and indirect religious discrimination. This is not a blanket protection as the realities and requirements of day-to-day life as well as potential conflict with other protected rights can occur. Indirect discrimination on the ground of religious belief or activity is permissible when reasonable. It is permissible to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religious belief if, in expressing their belief, they are encouraging or promoting conduct of an offence involving harm. It is permissible to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religious belief to comply with other legislation, law enforcement and national security needs. It is permissible to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religious belief if they cannot carry out the inherent requirements of their employment.
The bill also introduces the new offences of victimisation to deter people from trying to prevent others to engage with the Human Rights Commission and advertising an intention to engage in unlawful discrimination. These provisions strike the right balance in protecting religious freedom while also not impinging on other rights and the rights of others.
A crucial element of this bill is the clauses establishing a statement of belief. In summary: a statement of belief is a genuine belief made in good faith in accordance with what a person considers to be part of their belief system. The bill protects the making of statements of belief. This protection extends only to statements, not conduct, which may be discriminatory. Furthermore, the narrow protection of statements of belief extends only to other antidiscrimination laws or other prescribed state laws. The committee heard from Mr Mark Sneddon of the Institute for Civil Society, who remarked that statements of belief do not provide any individual a protection from every consequence and sanction, and that individuals can still face employer sanction, be in brief breach of contract, be in breach of code of conduct and face regulatory action from professional bodies.
Keeping with the bills' balanced approach, malicious, threatening or vilifying statements of belief are not protected under this bill. This allows for a shield against discriminatory complaints for moderately expressed religious views. The regulated nature and in-built protections means there is no sword here to use against others. Indeed, in the committee it was heard that the statement of belief had a narrow scope allowing banal statements. This reality of the bills' provisions does not reflect the commentary and scaremongering peddled by lobby groups. The further need for this protection is made clear in the application of some state discrimination laws. In Tasmania, we see the bar for protections set too low. Religious people feel they cannot even express traditional doctrines of marriage. Even the threat of these complaints and the spectre of lawyers and court costs to defend what many Australians feel is uncontroversial in their own faith community deters people from speaking. This is not right and has ever been remarked as possibly in breach of Australia's international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In practice, the Attorney-General's Department has outlined that a statement of belief defence will act as a federal defence to a claim of discrimination under Commonwealth, state or territory antidiscrimination laws. It will not, in and of itself, force discrimination complaints to courts, and, if they choose, states and territories have the power to arrange complaints to be heard at tribunals. The bill gives further protection by not allowing qualifying bodies to impose standards that would disallow a person from making a statement of belief when they are not working. Again, this is balanced. This protection does not extend to if the qualifying body conduct rule is an essential requirement of the job. Teachers, lawyers, health professionals and tradespeople should not be at risk of losing their registration or qualifications by reason of the expression of their religious beliefs in their personal capacity.
This bill gives religious organisations the protections needed to safeguard their religious ethos. This is a key issue for religious schools and their communities, who wish to maintain their faith and culture. The bill promotes this by allowing religious educational institutions to act in good faith, in a manner that a person would reasonably consider to be consistent with that religion's beliefs and teachings, including preferencing persons of the same religion. This is only permissible if done in accordance with a publicly available policy. It is important to note that the Religious Discrimination Bill itself states that certain conduct that is permissible under the bill may still be indirect or direct discrimination under other Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws, such as the Sex Discrimination Act.
People have asked me, 'Why such a rule for all religious schools, for all their employees?' Does it matter for a maths teacher at, say, a Christian school to be a Christian? Most people see the link for religious studies or humanities, but why maths? To that, I say: 'It is not about the individual subjects. It is about the type of people in the school, and the ethos the school values and wants to promote.' A student may see a maths teacher after class or in the yard about topics unrelated to class work. We all know the increasing burden teachers face as students' personal lives and problems become more apparent in the schoolyard, with little support from qualified professionals. It's important that all staff share the values of the school so parents and students have confidence in the community they put their children in.
Not only this, but it goes further, to an issue of freedom of association. In their submission to the committee, Jacinta Collins of the National Catholic Education Commission stated:
If people don't want to work in an environment which is operating within a faith based ethos, they can work in a public school or a school of another ethos or faith. It is an issue of choice, or, in my view, it's actually freedom of association … It's associating around our faith so that we can meet our mission about the transference of faith at the same time as delivering a high-quality education.
The proposed bills are about completing the antidiscrimination framework Australians enjoy. In keeping with our international obligations, and to protect all members of Australian society from discrimination, we must pass these bills. Anyone who has read the bills and not relied on wilfully spread misinformation will tell you the targeted measures of the bills, and the protections within that, will not see wholesale collapse of Australian society and instant discrimination and vilification—far from this. We will see religious and nonreligious alike enjoy protections under the new law and deliver clarity on permissible, personal and professional conduct.
Talks of amending the Sex Discrimination Act should have nothing to do with this bill, and debate on the merits of any amendments can be discussed when they're proposed. The task at hand is establishing a religious discrimination act that will bring peace of mind to all Australians, particularly those of faith.
Mr WILKIE (Clark) (13:09): I'm opposed to the Religious Discrimination Bill in its current form, just as I was opposed to the previous version of this legislation put forward by the government. This bill will have an enormous impact on the rights and freedoms of many Australians, and particularly Tasmanians. Tasmania has the strongest antidiscrimination laws in the country, and it's because of this that we have the most to lose under this legislation. Indeed, we have the fiercest protections against discrimination for minority groups and are the only state in Australia that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and relationship status by faith linked organisations, including schools, hospitals and charities. We are also one of the few states that prohibit all hate speech, with no exceptions on religious grounds.
The government has said that the bill is not intended to replace state laws. However, if it is passed, that's exactly what will be done here, because this bill creates a direct conflict between state and federal laws, allowing people who are complaining of religious discrimination to sidestep state laws and practices. So, in effect, Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act would be undermined, despite the Tasmanian parliament twice upholding the state's hate speech laws and the Supreme Court of Tasmania having found them to be constitutionally sound on more than one occasion. In other words, this bill demonstrates a blatant disregard for state and territory laws by the federal government. Indeed, the federal government should be looking at Tasmania's antidiscrimination laws as a model for national reform, but instead it is intent on watering down the strong protections we have in the island state. This is something that Tasmanians do not want, and even the Liberal Premier has said as much recently.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that this legislation will serve as a shield, not a sword. This is also not true, because this bill will allow people to make harmful and arguably discriminatory statements against others in the name of faith. It could allow, for example, a doctor to tell a vulnerable woman that she is sinning in the eyes of God because she is seeking access to contraception. It could allow a person to say to another that their disability was caused because they turned their back on God. It could allow a school to sack a member of its staff simply for being gay. It could allow a nurse to tell a patient that their HIV diagnosis is a punishment from God. It could allow faith linked schools to teach students that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, despite the overwhelming majority of Australians voting in favour of marriage equality and it now being Australian law. Indeed, it could allow a school to force parents to sign a contract agreeing that their children will only identify as the sex they were assigned at birth, as we saw in the media just last week. Quite frankly, it's absurd that people feel they are being persecuted if they are prevented from persecuting others. Don't get me wrong: I support freedom of religion when it means not discriminating against people of faith, but I will not support legislation that allows discrimination and hate speech in the name of faith.
I do acknowledge that two controversial provisions from the original draft bill have been removed: the Folau clause, which provided individuals with legal protection from having their employment terminated because of expressing religious beliefs, and the clause which would have enabled health providers to refuse to provide treatment based on conscientious objection. The removal of these provisions is welcome, but some of the most controversial provisions remain in the bill, and new inclusions, such as the clause allowing statements of belief as a defence to discrimination complaints, make this bill simply unsupportable, particularly considering this definition is not subject to clear or well defined limitations.
Implementing legislation which permits religious freedoms without appropriate corresponding limitations and safeguards is reckless and potentially dangerous. It goes against the public interest and completely disregards the wishes of the community. Indeed, a poll conducted by YouGov just last week found that 77 per cent of Australians oppose religious exemptions from laws against discriminatory speech. Moreover, I have received correspondence from hundreds, if not thousands, of Australians calling for this bill to be scrapped. The community recognises the dangers of this bill, so why can't the government?
What's equally concerning is the fraught process by which we have got to where we are today. The government would have been more than happy to push this legislation through the parliament without any scrutiny, but due to public and internal pressures the bill was subject to not one but two concurrent inquiries over summer. However, it's important to note that the process by which these inquiries were conducted was entirely unacceptable. For instance, the consultation process allowed just 25 days for public submissions into what is arguably the most complex discrimination law in Australia's legislative history. What's more, the inquiries were conducted over the Christmas-New Year period, when many organisations have closed for the year. This bill has been on the government's agenda for over three years, and this is obviously a very important issue in the Australian community, but once again politics are prioritised over effective public scrutiny.
Former Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Robin Banks has provided me with some worrying figures about these committee inquiries. For example, at the time of conducting her analysis, Ms Banks found that, although the overwhelming majority of the submissions received opposed the bill, only 14 per cent of the submitters had the opportunity to give evidence in person. On the contrary, of the small number of submissions received in support of the bill, 53 per cent of the submitters were allowed to give evidence. Further, there were four submissions from legal academics or legal groups which supported the legislation, of whom three gave evidence. On the flipside, there were 21 submissions from legal academics or legal organisations opposing the legislation, and only two of the submitters gave evidence. This leads to the conclusion that the committee has privileged certain voices, of religion, over others, and it is an unacceptable example of lack of due process. In short, the entire inquiry process has been a farce and a tick-box exercise by the government to justify passing this unjustifiable bill.
If the government is serious about protecting the rights and freedoms of all Australians, then it must ensure that the right balance is met between protecting people from discrimination based on their faith and protecting people from harm based on statements or actions by others in the name of faith. We are also bound to ensure that such a balance is reached under our international obligations. For instance, as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under article 18 we must ensure that 'Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.' This right includes the freedom to express one's religion or belief, but, importantly, it also provides an essential and well-defined limitation. Article 18.3 states:
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
Such a limitation would ensure the protection of all rights, whilst also maintaining the autonomy of state and territory laws. We cannot selectively apply our international obligations. The human rights of all Australians must be considered and applied as a complete package, including international law.
Australia remains the only democratic nation without any sort of bill or charter of rights. I have sought to remedy this with my Australian Bill of Rights Bill, which I've now introduced twice but which has not been supported by either major party. This bill would address the issue of religious discrimination. It would render invalid any Commonwealth, state or territory law that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, to the extent of that inconsistency. It would also specify that Commonwealth, state and territory laws should be interpreted so as to be consistent with the Bill of Rights.
In terms of the issue we are discussing today, article 6 of my Australian Bill of Rights enshrines a right to freedom of religion or belief, and article 4 allows for freedom of expression. Importantly, however, my Bill of Rights imposes a necessary limitation, in that people will be limited in expressing their rights as is necessary to ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms of others are protected. So I say to all members of parliament: if you really want to protect the rights and freedoms of all Australians, my human rights bill is what we should be debating here today. That is the bill that should be passed.
In summary, I cannot support the Religious Discrimination Bill in its current form, because it doesn't ensure that all Australians are protected from discrimination and because it would have a particularly harmful effect on the Tasmanian community, which already has a strong protective framework. We should not be advocating for one group of Australians against another. Our laws should protect each and every one of us equally, no matter who we are, what we believe or who we love. We must move towards a more inclusive and accepting society, which promotes equal rights for all, not special rights for some. In light of everything I've said in his speech, I move the amendment that has been circulated in my name:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and notes that:
(1) this bill will have a greater negative impact on Tasmania than any other state or territory because our anti-discrimination legislation is currently the best in the country; and
(2) the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 has the full support of the Tasmanian Parliament and been strongly endorsed by the Liberal Premier the Hon Peter Gutwein MP".
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ): Is the amendment seconded?
Ms Sharkie: I second the motion and reserve my right to expect.
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:21): I rise to support the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and associated legislation. Australian society is diverse and multicultural in nature. It is made up of immigrants from more than 200 different nations around the world, with very different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. It is a credit to our tolerant society that Australians from varied cultures have been able to live together peaceably and in relative harmony, compared with the many countries in the world which are marred by civil unrest and conflict. Although we live in a tolerant society, there have been recent instances of discrimination in Australia based on religion, as reported in the media, which this legislation aims to address. It is the intent of this bill to add further protections for people based on their religion, in line with the existing legislation in place, which protects individuals based on attributes such as their age, sex, race or disability.
Religion is important to Australians. The 2016 Census of Population and Housing revealed that 61 per cent of the Australian population, which equates to 14 million people, are affiliated with a religion or spiritual belief. Christianity is the dominant religion in Australia, with 12 million people, and 86 per cent of religious Australians, identifying as Christians. However, just over two million Australians observe a religion other than Christianity, accounting for 14 per cent of religious people, or eight per cent of the total population. As a migrant nation, Australia is home to a diverse collection of people, and this is apparent through the wide variety of different religions recorded on the census. The most prominent non-Christian religions are Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Judaism. Although Australia is a predominantly religious country, about one third of all Australians—30 per cent, or seven million people—indicated that they had either no religion or a secular belief, such as atheism, humanism or agnosticism. This legislation also aims to equally protect people who do not adhere to any faith.
My electorate, in the northern suburbs of Perth, with a large proportion of overseas born migrants, is home to many different faith communities. The world's mainstream religions have a lot in common when it comes to concepts such as morality, ethics and charity. However, there have been a number of instances of religious discrimination against people of faith, with unfair criticism of individuals for actively exercising their democratic right to participate in community affairs. For example, I have been subjected to personal attacks by the media over several years for being a Christian, as have a number of my supporters and colleagues. Political opponents have questioned the right of people of faith to participate in the political process and have used slurs to denigrate mainstream Christian beliefs by referring to my supporters and me as being part of a cult. This is why a religious discrimination bill is required—to give lawful protection to people of faith the right to participate in society.
In the current debate on religious freedom, it is important that we are respectful and tolerant of the religious beliefs of all Australians. The legislation before us may well be more accurately described as promoting religious harmony, as opposed to religious freedom. As a lifelong Christian I am a strong supporter of traditional family values, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and multiculturalism. Governments should not restrict the rights of Australians to worship freely according to their faith, beliefs, values and conscience, except in instances where hate, violence or illegal acts are incited. Simply disagreeing with the religious views of another person or group of persons should not be grounds for government intervention.
Religious freedom extends into the realm of cultural freedom, which is important in our multicultural society. Individuals must be free to live their lives according to deeply held beliefs and values, which are not only religious but cultural in nature, without impinging on the rights of others to exercise their rights and freedoms. For example, Christmas is both a religious and a cultural festival in nature. The freedom to believe in Christ and the freedom to celebrate with customary carols and festive traditions are religious and cultural freedoms which must be preserved.
Religious beliefs often guide our choices in life. There is a distinct difference between the notions of discernment and discrimination. Individuals must be free to discern what is good from what is bad. They must have the freedom to choose between what is right and wrong and to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate. These choices are quite distinct from discrimination which legislation seeks to curtail. Each day, we make discernments in our choices and our behaviour and with whom we choose to associate. These choices must not be confused with discrimination. Legislation and regulation should not infringe on basic human rights to discern. Discernment is often required with activities that are legal, such as moderation in the consumption of alcohol, in gambling or in smoking tobacco.
Individuals, parents and families should be free to express their values and beliefs to their children. This legislation provides the necessary legal protection to make law personal choices based on religious belief. Many families of faith in my electorate choose to send their children to private schools operated by religious institutions, because they see value in the religious ethos of the school as part of a well-rounded education which not only prepares students for the workforce but equips them with faith based values and life skills for adult life. These parents make considerable financial sacrifices to send their children to religious schools and are justified in their expectation that the school will uphold the faith, doctrines and tenets of the respective religion. Although I'm an Anglican, I completed my high school education at Aranmore Catholic College, run by the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy, and I certainly benefited from the school's religious education program, which contributed to developing my Christian faith.
Similarly, at the other end of the life spectrum, many religious organisations operate aged-care facilities of a particular faith, and senior citizens feel more comfortable by being able to attend chapel services and observe within the facility the familiar traditions of festivals and holy days in keeping with their religious heritage. So it is not unreasonable for religious organisations to recruit staff who adhere or are sympathetic to a particular faith. The public is aware of the religious affiliation of the facility and has made a conscious choice to preference it over a secular service provider. The ability of religious institutions to preference applicants for employment who adhere to the faith, doctrines and tenets of the particular religion provides the opportunity for individual choice—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Members of Parliament: Staff
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (13:30): Nearly one year since the day Ms Brittany Higgins came forward with a horrific story about alleged crimes perpetrated on her in this building Australian women are still demanding answers from the Prime Minister. When planning to deliver a parliamentary acknowledgement of the bullying and sexual harassment that has taken place in this building, why was the Prime Minister's first act not to invite the survivors? Why are these women constantly an afterthought to the Morrison government? Why did the Prime Minister refuse to walk to his own front door to listen to 10,000 women demanding respect at work—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member must remember sub judice and say 'alleged crimes'.
Ms WELLS: I said 'alleged crimes', Mr Deputy Speaker.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I thought you said otherwise. Sorry, continue.
Ms WELLS: Who knew about the reported assault of Brittany Higgins just metres away from the Prime Minister's office and when did they know? Why has the Gaetjens report not been treated with the urgency it deserves? Why a year on can the Prime Minister still not answer that question? Why did the Deputy Prime Minister in a text call the Prime Minister a liar in the same week he denied any knowledge of the alleged sexual assault that happened in our own workplace? Why did the Prime Minister refuse to release internal documents requested through the FOI process regarding the alleged rape of Brittany Higgins? Why did he give domestic and gendered violence advocates a measly two weeks to map out the next 10 years of the fight against gendered violence in Australia? Why do we still have to ask these questions a year on?
Parkes Electorate: Business
Mr COULTON (Parkes) (13:31): Last Friday night I attended the business awards in Dubbo, aptly named the Rhino Awards as a tribute to the stars at the Taronga Western Plains Zoo in Dubbo. What was particularly exciting about that night was the level of optimism and success of local businesses. Through a couple of pretty difficult years they have not only survived but thrived. The Gold Rhino went to online ticketing company 123 Tix, who showed great innovation to evolve their company to keep it relevant and grow their company during the pandemic.
Dubbo is just one town in my electorate. During the break I spoke to a businessperson in Moree who employs 20 people. They were saying what a great help JobKeeper was to keep their business afloat during the early days of the pandemic and how subsequent government policies, like the instant asset write-off, have enabled their business to invest in equipment and ultimately tool up and hire staff to enable them to take part in the enormous opportunities across regional Australia at the moment. This is a very positive time for regional Australia.
COVID-19
Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (13:33): This summer a member of my community wrote to me in despair and said:
My husband and I are older people and parents of two disabled adults. We've been made to feel expendable by the Morrison government and their current decisions. Are these decisions because we're seen as a burden on the community? Are they because we're considered unproductive? Are we a way to save money on pensions, because dead people cannot claim a pension?
She went on to explain the lengths she had gone to to try to source COVID tests for her family, including for her son with Down syndrome. She said that rapid antigen tests were unavailable. As a grandparent she undertakes regular duties to care for two children under five, who can't be vaccinated but are also exposed to the virus at child care. And the staff cannot access rapid antigen tests.
This was the summer for my constituents, but for the Morrison government this summer was attending the cricket for three days instead of attending the Senate inquiry into COVID in aged care. It was trying to explain away text messages about the Prime Minister's character from the former New South Wales Premier, a current cabinet minister and, of course, the current Deputy Prime Minister. Most recently for the Prime Minister it was attending to campaign stunts and washing a woman's hair for the cameras. My community is sick and tired of this Prime Minister and this government not doing their jobs. We deserve so much better. (Time expired)
Murray-Darling Basin
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (13:35): Over 2.2 million people live across the most productive agricultural region in Australia, and that is the Murray-Darling Basin. Those 2.2 million people are in extreme fear of a Labor government and the Greens party in relation to their water policies.
When a senior journalist recently interviewed the shadow water minister, the member for Griffith, and asked whether they would increase buybacks out of agriculture, buying water off desperate farmers—and there is a 100 gigalitre cap in this area—the shadow minister would not answer the question. This is the most destructive policy you can have for over two million people who live around the Murray-Darling Basin, and she was noncommittal about increasing the cap on buying water from farmers. When it came to an additional 450 gigalitres that the plan is demanding be flushed down the rivers—again, this water cannot be delivered without causing incredible pain and damage to the agricultural sector—again, the member for Griffith's was noncommittal and would not comment on another 450 gigalitres being taken away from agriculture.
These issues are critical to the two million people living up and down the Murray-Darling Basin, and it is a real and genuine concern that the Labor Party will simply go after desperate farmers and buy their water. (Time expired)
Aged Care
Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (13:36): Today I had the privilege of meeting Shirley, Ashka and Katie, who between them have worked more than 30 years in aged care. They came to Canberra to implore this parliament to address the aged-care crisis that is gripping this country. We also heard from Roslyn, who finished her evening shift last night but was so determined to speak up for the residents she cares about that she came to Canberra to speak to MPs.
It is aged-care residents who are bearing the brunt of this crisis. More than 500 have died with COVID since New Year's Day. It is an horrendous toll, with every one of those deaths a person: a mother or a father, a grandparent, a valued and loved member of our community—somebody to be valued, someone who is not expendable.
Long before we had heard of coronavirus, aged care was in crisis. We had a royal commission about it—Neglect! The report made 148 recommendations, and it's been left to gather dust by this rotten Liberal government. The coronavirus pandemic has only made the crisis worse. Staff are calling in sick and can't be replaced. Residents are being locked in their rooms. They're not being fed on time, nor cleaned, nor showered. Nurses, carers, volunteers and families are tearing their hair out while the PM does photo-ops, washing hair. Four weeks ago, they asked the government to send in ADF assistance. This Prime Minister at first said no and then changed his mind. It's always too little, too late.
Leichhardt Electorate: Citizens of the Year
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:38): I rise this afternoon to place on the record and pay tribute to those in my community who were recently named as Citizens of the Year at recent local government Australia Day Awards ceremonies in my electorate. These awards are always one of the highlights of the year, as they acknowledge those who work tirelessly to ensure that their community is a great place to live, work and play. Sadly, due to current events, ceremonies were held virtually or with capped numbers.
Cairns Regional Council named Rick Hanlon from AFL Cape York House as its Citizen of the Year, while, up the road, Douglas Shire Council named former local principal Deborah Kachel as its Citizen of the Year for her almost 50 years of service to various charities across the shire. Cook Shire Council named Lou Norgard as its Citizen of the Year, and Stephanie Savage took home the top gong at the Torres Shire Council Australia Day Awards. Last, but certainly not least, Rose Robbins was named Weipa's top citizen.
I also want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the many other unsung heroes in my community who didn't make any official list but whose work in our community over the past year certainly hasn't gone unnoticed. To those people I say thank you. Our communities are far richer for your tireless and selfless contributions.
Commonwealth Scholarships Program for Young Australians
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (13:39): Everyone, wherever they live, deserves access to the best education and training Australia has to offer. But this government is deliberately making it harder for young people in my community to take up a trade. Over the past eight years the Morrison government has cut millions of dollars from vocational education and training. This has led to a 10 per cent drop in the number of apprentices and trainees on the north end of the Central Coast. And now the government has decided to exclude young people living in my community from the Commonwealth Scholarships Program for Young Australians.
This program offers $13,000 scholarships for people wanting to take up an apprenticeship or traineeship in a few hand-picked regions across Australia. In New South Wales, this includes Gosford but completely excludes the north end of the coast. This doesn't make sense. How can you exclude part of the coast from this program when we're one region? It's hard enough for young people living outside big cities to get the training and skills they need, but now they're being deliberately overlooked. There are already a higher number of jobseekers on the north end of the coast. If this scholarship program is based on need then why are young people in Dobell being excluded? We have a skills crisis across the coast, not just in Gosford, and people in my community deserve a fair shot at training and more secure work. Every young person, wherever they live on the Central Coast, deserves this opportunity. The Morrison government needs to explain to young people in Dobell why they're missing out again.
Glenhaven Carols by Candlelight
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (13:41): It's rare that one event can bring the whole community together, but, for over 20 years, the Glenhaven Christmas carols is an event that can and does. Each year Glenhaven Oval fills with thousands of local families sitting on their picnic blankets enjoying each other's company and soaking up the Christmas spirit. Last year the event drew over 4,000 people to the oval: mums, dads, grandparents and children. Glenhaven Christmas carols is the product of the hard work of community minded citizens, including members of Glenhaven Rotary and the Glenhaven RFS, who want to put on a great night of family entertainment. I particularly want to acknowledge the hard work of the Glenhaven Carols Christmas committee: Barry Philps, Mitchell Blue, Chris Costaganna, Pablo and Eva Anwandter, Sarah Didsbury, James Langan, Donna Fraser, Karen Stowe and Louise Hedges.
Despite the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, last year's Christmas carols was the best ever. Glenhaven Oval took on a carnival atmosphere, with rides and amusements as well as stage performances by local dance groups and young entertainers living in the area, including Reid the Music, Cassidy-Rae Wilson, Jenna's Singing School, Sister2Sister School of Singing and the combined North West Wind Ensemble and Castle Hill Youth Orchestra. The evening finished with a spectacular fire display. Money raised at last year's carols will be used to support local community groups, including the RFS, Hills Community Aid, the SES, Glenhaven Community Defib Project and ONE80TC rehabilitation services. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Glenhaven on a wonderful event that has brought our community together year after year for over two decades.
Petition: Climate Change
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:42): There are 114 new coal and gas projects in the approvals pipeline, and right now both the government and the opposition want to see them developed. This would create 2½ times as much pollution as Australia currently produces every year. The International Energy Agency has said that, to meet either the 1½ degrees or the net zero by 2050 goal supposedly adopted by both of those parties, not one single new coal, oil or gas project can proceed. One of these 114 projects alone could blow every climate target.
In order to reach the goal of a safe planet, Australia needs to hit pause on all new coal and gas projects. That's why the Greens want to see a freeze put on any new projects. We shouldn't be pouring more petrol on the fire; we should be trying to put it out. Young people get it. They have taken this government to court over its approval of new coalmines and how an expansion of coal will damage their health and wellbeing. Governments hold a duty of care for future generations. The Federal Court has backed in these eight young Australians, but the government is appealing to the full Federal Court because this government refuses to be bound by any such notion like caring for and looking after future generations. Liberal and Labor want more goal and gas but the Greens don't. That's why I'm proud to table this petition supporting the brave young people taking this government to court over its expansion of coal and gas. No more coal and gas.
The petition read as follows—
Our world is heating up due to burning of coal and the Minister for the Environment should stop approving coal mines that add fuel to the fire and make the crisis worse.
In the words of Justice Bromberg in the Sharma case: "As Australian adults know their country, Australia will be lost and the World as we know it gone as well. The physical environment will be harsher, far more extreme and devastatingly brutal when angry. 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."
Since the judgment the Minister for the Environment has approved FOUR coal mines arguing that if we don't do it somebody else will. It is a logical fallacy that contravenes basic economic principles of supply and demand. It is immoral, just like a drug dealer saying "if I don't supply the drugs, someone else will".
We therefore ask the House to advise the Federal Minister for the Environment to exert her duty of care towards Australian Children and to stop encouraging the extraction and burning of coal.
from 959 citizens. (Petition No. EN3499)
Petition received.
Australia Day Awards
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (13:44): Today I would like to congratulate the recipients of awards in the 2022 Australia Day honours within my electorate of Boothby. I'm honoured to be able to congratulate this year's recipients and to highlight their contributions to our local community, to South Australia and to the nation. The following local residents were awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in the 2022 Australia Day honours: Mr Robert Canney, for service to cricket; Mr Roger Grund, for service to conservation; Dr Kerry Hancock, for service to medicine through a range of roles; Ms Meg Harris, for service to sport as a gold medallist at the Tokyo Olympic Games, winning gold in the 4 x 100 metre freestyle swimming relay at only 19 years of age; Angela Pangallo, for service to people with neurodevelopmental disorders; and Mr Graham Priestnall, for service to the defence industry.
A number of local residents were also recognised with meritorious awards. I would also like to highlight their work for our community, state and nation. Mrs Sara Fleming was awarded the Public Service Medal for outstanding public service to the development and provision of Paediatric Palliative Care Services; Mr Malcolm Amos was awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal; and Mr Jamie Goldsmith was awarded the Australian Corrections Medal. Each of these honours recipients is a dedicated and respected member of our local community, and I extend my sincere congratulations and thanks to them all.
Loadsman, Mrs Tascha
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (13:45): With sadness, I rise today to say farewell to an incredible member of the Queanbeyan community. After a long battle with motor neurone disease, Queanbeyan mother of five Tascha Loadsman passed away on Sunday. My heart goes out to Tascha's husband, Matt, her children, her family, her friends and the broader Queanbeyan community who are mourning this loss.
Tascha was a remarkable woman. She served in the ADF for more than a decade, moving around Australia before settling in Queanbeyan in 2013. She was a business owner, dedicated mother and an extremely active woman until her motor neurone disease diagnosis. With no known cure, the past three years have been incredibly difficult for Tascha and her family as her body shut down.
I first met Tascha almost two years ago to discuss her application to the NDIS, for a lift, and that application wasn't met. By this time, Tascha was confined to a wheelchair and needed support every day. MND is terminal. There is no cure. Despite this, Tascha remained strong and fought every single day. Not only was she fighting her own battle every single day; she was letting other people in on that battle by documenting it on social media on a page called You, Me & MND. She let her voice advocate respite care in Queanbeyan. She spoke out about the need for respite care in Queanbeyan and gave an honest account of her experiences in the hope that others wouldn't need to travel to Canberra to access care.
Tascha's husband, Matt, and her children will be celebrating Tascha's life this Friday. It will be a colourful celebration of a beautiful woman who made the world a better place. Vale, Tascha Loadsman.
BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:47): On Australia Day, I was privileged to attend the ceremony to commemorate the 20th anniversary of BAPS Perth at the temple in Wangara. BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha is a worldwide sociospiritual volunteer and humanitarian organisation. It is in consultative status with the economic and social council of the United Nations organisation, with its presence spread worldwide. Through various spiritual and humanitarian activities, BAPS Perth, under the guidance and leadership of His Holiness Mahan Swami Maharaj, has taken part in regular annual food donation drives, distributing several tonnes of canned food to local charities, including the Salvation Army, the Spiers Centre and No Limits Perth.
The organisation has prepared meals for bushfire volunteers and distributed healthcare packages during COVID lockdowns. BAPS has also raised money for the local hospital through fundraising walkathons and participating in Clean Up Australia Day and blood donation drives. The BAPS organisation is dedicated to community service, peace and harmony. I want to thank Yogesh Shah, Hank Wadia and Dylan Wadia for welcoming me to the organisation.
Shortland Electorate: Health Care
Mr CONROY (Shortland) (13:48): The Liberal government hates Medicare. That's why there's a GP crisis in Shortland right now. Shortland is the sixth oldest electorate in the country. We have a higher than average Indigenous population, and household income is below the state and national averages. My constituents rely on bulk billing and Medicare.
The changes introduced by the government in 2020 now classify Shortland as 'metropolitan' for bulk-billing incentives for GPs. This classification is absurd. Shortland is a regional electorate. To classify the region I represent as the same as Wentworth and North Sydney is a disgrace. On top of this, Lake Macquarie is not considered a distribution priority area anymore, meaning that overseas trained and bonded medical program doctors can no longer practise in the region. These decisions by the Morrison-Joyce government mean that we now have a chronic GP shortage and that practices are just not able to provide bulk-billing to the extent they used to. One certain practice advised me that they went from bulk-billing 80 per cent of their patients to just 20 per cent.
On top of this, the Liberals have also gutted funding to the Hunter's much-cherished GP access after-hours service. Belmont Hospital has cut its hours of operation for this service on weekends and public holidays in half. The Liberals' pathological hatred of Medicare is hurting the people of Shortland and preventing them from accessing the health care that they need and deserve.
Groom Electorate: Health Care
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (13:50): Health care is an economic mainstay of the Toowoomba region, contributing around $1.6 billion to our regional economy and accounting for one in five jobs in our fair city. That's why I was delighted to welcome the regional health minister, Dr David Gillespie, to our region last week. It was a vote of confidence in and a recognition of our reputation as a health hub. Our local hospitals and health services not only care for Toowoomba's growing population but for our communities well into western Queensland and even down into northern New South Wales—and I send a shout-out to my family in Warialda, who always come to Toowoomba hospitals for their care.
It was great to introduce Dr Gillespie to the heads of our major hospitals and key representatives from aged-care and medical-training courses. These local leaders were able to share some of the opportunities and challenges facing our region, particularly in attracting and retaining a skilled workforce. I thank the minister for listening and for announcing a $2 million boost to Southern Queensland Rural Health, to support allied health students to undertake placements at Goondir Health Services in St George.
This will get more students out of Brisbane classrooms and into the bush, building up the health team around our hardworking GPs, who will also see their numbers bolstered through a recent change to our DPA status. That was very hard fought for, and won, by local clinics. This is excellent recognition of Toowoomba's role in providing a hub-and-spoke model of health care that supports patients to live their best and healthiest lives in our regional communities.
Dunkley Electorate
Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (13:51): Last week the Prime Minister came to my electorate and my community, and what did he do? He washed a young woman's hair! It's such a shame that he didn't tell me he was coming, because I would have introduced him to a range of local people—the sorts of people who it seems that he just doesn't want to hear from—like Tracy, who is the hardest-working nurse you could ever hope to meet. She was in my office last week, crying, because she and her colleagues at Frankston Hospital are run off their feet and getting no recognition from the federal government.
Or there's Matthew, who has an intellectual disability. All he wants to do is get a job. But because of cuts to his NDIS plan he can't even afford the transport to go to interviews. Or perhaps there's Joe, whose parents are in aged care—the aged-care system, which is in crisis. They got COVID, they were separated and isolated in dementia wards. They were so distressed at being left alone that they had to be sedated. Or there are the aged-care workers who are working shift after shift after shift to care for the most vulnerable Australians and who have had their pleas for help ignored by this federal government and by a minister who goes to the cricket. Or perhaps the Prime Minister could have talked to Rachel, who runs two GP clinics in Carrum Downs which can't get bulk-billing GPs to come and stay because of this government's policies.
These are the real people in my electorate who I stand up for every day.
Riverina Electorate: Wagga Wagga
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (13:53): Here's a bit of a fun fact: there are around 11,000 beaches in Australia, which means that someone could go to a new beach every day for the next 30 years and not go to the same beach twice. Isn't that fascinating? But there was a massive oversight this summer, because Wagga Wagga's beach on the Murrumbidgee River was excluded from the top 20 beaches in Australia!
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I can hear the roars of discontent about this absolute outrage! Two years ago it was included as No. 9, would you believe, Mr Deputy Speaker? It was the ninth-best beach in all of Australia. It was the first inland river beach to be included in that exclusive list. But, unbelievably and inexplicably, it has been excluded from this year's a list. And what is No. 1? With all due respect to the member for O'Connor, it's Misery Beach.
I believe that Wagga Wagga's beach should be in the top 20, if not No. 1. This goes to the judges' assessment of the beaches as to why Wagga Wagga's beach isn't in that list. But hope is at hand: with the $9.2 million that Wagga Wagga City Council has as part of their Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program investment, they're upgrading the river precinct. With the new playground, the new shade sails and everything else they're investing in, Wagga Wagga's beach will be back in the top 20, if not No. 1, very soon.
Cox, Ms Wendy
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (13:55): Today, I'm making a big shout-out to Wendy Cox, who runs the Graceville Fine Foods & Deli, and her team. Everyone in Graceville knows Wendy. Last year, she received a Moreton Volunteers Award for the support she provided to my local community during the first year of the pandemic. Wendy needs a new award this year because Wendy and her team just keep on going. Wendy started the 'Thank you Nurse!' campaign, making delicious dishes for the nurses working in Brisbane's COVID wards. My mum, Peggy Perrett, was a nurse, so I know the long hours that they work, the care they give to patients, the sacrifice they make in being away from their families and, often during a pandemic, putting themselves in harm's way. So anyone who's supporting nurses is No. 1 in my book.
The 'Thank you Nurse!' campaign is a community supported enterprise of love. Locals have donated funds to buy food, and the cooking and delivery is done by Wendy, her chef and the deli staff and volunteers. While this pandemic has taken a terrible toll on our medical staff—people working day in and day out to keep people alive, sometimes particularly those unvaccinated—it has also shown us the generosity and community spirit many have in their hearts. Well done, Wendy. Well done to Chef Gareth, Tory and the rest of the staff at Graceville Fine Foods & Deli. I've been going there for nearly 30 years. I know that they will keep making life a bit brighter for our wonderful nurses. Let's see if we can get another award for Wendy and her team at Graceville Fine Foods & Deli.
Schools
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (13:56): As a career supporter of choice and faith based education and values, many of us in Brisbane were shocked by the actions of Citipointe Christian College last week. Brian Mulheran's notion of gender contracts is just revolting, and I'm glad that they were consigned to history. More broadly in the scope of the Religious Discrimination Bill and these competing notions, I'm strongly supporting the role of faith based education. But I will be guided in my vote by the experience of a family in my own electorate who today travels one hour across my city and back, twice a day, to find a school that will accept this child who was not accepted at a local school. The current provision that expulsion of these young children struggling with gender issues shall be prohibited is simply not enough, because these students are usually not expelled. Too often, they're bullied out of schools by a range of other tactics that allow a school to say, 'We never expelled them.' It's incredibly tragic.
Let's remember for a moment, in this great tension between parents seeking a faith based education and board members and schools maintaining what they believe they stand for, that schools are not necessarily a place of delivering faith as much as a place delivering education for those students who are there for the right reasons. They deserve to complete their education without being forced out of schools in the absence of these protections.
Western Sydney: Health Care
Ms ROWLAND (Greenway) (13:58): Now more than ever, Western Sydney deserves better health infrastructure. The population of the north-west is forecast to soar, and its needs cannot be absorbed by Blacktown and Westmead hospitals alone. What Western Sydney residents want and need is a first-rate emergency ward at the long promised Rouse Hill Hospital. They do not want a glorified medical centre. Just last week, a local resident reached out to me, saying: 'Please keep fighting for an emergency department in Rouse Hill. I went to Westmead Hospital yesterday but gave up after hours of waiting for triage in the car park, with a crowd of other very sick, coughing elderly people lying on benches or in wheelchairs outside for hours. It's a disaster.'
That same week, the Daily Telegraph broke that the New South Wales Liberal government has disposed of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of dodgy PPE, and reports about an audit of NSW Health revealed that, in total, $775 million worth of COVID-19 inventory, including PPE, was either written off or impaired. Can you imagine what $775 million could have delivered for increased health capacity in Western Sydney? In the lead-up to the 2015 state election, the New South Wales Liberals promised to build a hospital at Rouse Hill to cater for this growth. It's now 2022, and they are still consulting on what capabilities and functions the hospital should have. It's not good enough. I will continue to fight for the people of Greenway to have the best health facilities possible.
The SPEAKER: The member for Mackellar has the call for 20 seconds.
Speaker
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:59): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think you're looking quite wonderful today, and can I say the entire chamber would agree with me on that point. Thank you.
The SPEAKER: It being 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 97 the proceedings are interrupted.
MOTIONS
Queen Elizabeth II: Platinum Jubilee
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:00): I move:
That:
An Address of Congratulation be presented to Her Majesty The Queen, as follows:
YOUR MAJESTY
We, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, express to Your Majesty our warm congratulations at this time of celebration of the Platinum Jubilee of your accession to the Throne.
We express our respect and regard for the dedication you have displayed in the service of the Commonwealth and your deep and abiding commitment to Australia and her people.
Seventy years ago, the then Princess Elizabeth was on her way to Australia. Then the world as she knew it changed forever. Her beloved father had died, and a young princess in her 20s, in the first years of her marriage and with two young children, became Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and a Commonwealth of Nations that spanned the globe. The Queen has never celebrated this day, and understandably so. I am sure she would have preferred to enjoy her father's love and example for many more years before she was called upon to wear that heavy crown—a reminder that, no matter who we are, events happen in life, events out of our control, that require more of us than we think sometimes we may be able. In that moment of profound and immense sadness, and with the tremendous grace and poise and dignity and strength for which she has become known all around the world, and particularly here in Australia, Her Majesty commenced her duties as our Queen.
Her life is one of dedication; of duty and devotion; of service over self; of steadfast and unflinching adherence to the ideals and the responsibilities of constitutional monarchy. Years before that heartbreaking day of accession, on her 21st birthday, in a broadcast from South Africa, the future Queen declared:
I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong.
Looking across the vista of three-quarters of a century, we can say that Her Majesty has in every way been faithful to that vow.
Throughout her reign, Her Majesty has been a steadfast and unifying presence in the life of our world and in the life of our nation as Queen of Australia. Even in our capital, we see her recurring presence. Here in Canberra, Her Majesty opened the High Court in 1980, the National Gallery in 1982 and our Parliament House in 1988, and back in 1970 she opened the National Carillon. Aspen Island, where the Carillon stands, will be renamed in her honour in June. Her Majesty heads a Commonwealth of 54 nations, almost a third of the world's people, and is the sovereign of the United Kingdom, Australia and 13 other nations. Seventy years marks a reign of 25,568 days as of last Sunday, and I hope we will see many thousands more—a remarkable achievement from a remarkable woman.
Her Majesty has been at the reigning sovereign for 15 Australian prime ministers, 16 governors-general, 14 British prime ministers, around 170 Commonwealth prime ministers and also seven James Bonds, one of whom Her Majesty worked with very closely. If there is an indelible moment from the 2012 London Olympics, it was the cheeky, slightly irreverent and magnificent video of Her Majesty and Daniel Craig playing James Bond. The story goes that no-one thought she would do it, and eventually a nervous courtier asked. I can only imagine, having met Her Majesty. The Queen looked at the proposal and said she'd do it, but there was one condition: she wanted a speaking part. And with that, she took out the pen and wrote the words, 'Good evening, Mr Bond.' In that we see something of her quiet assurance and her good humour. Someone whose values are timeless and yet change with the times, a monarchy that has evolved from distance to involvement and from reserve to good humour.
The Crown is above politics, and the Queen has upheld that throughout her reign. It is a unifying force that highlights good causes and brings people together. And in the moments of trial and testing times that she has known over her life, both personally and as monarch and sovereign, she speaks for us all and to us all. 'Grief is the price we pay for love,' the Queen wrote to New Yorkers after September 11. During our Black Summer fires—I had the privilege to sit with her and discuss them with her as she shared her reflections on them—she reflected on the character of Australians. She observed publicly that the stoic and resilient nature of the Australian people will rise to the challenge, and we did, as she always knew we would. In the midst of the darkness of the early days of the pandemic she pledged that, like in an earlier time, we would meet again, and surely we have.
In past jubilees—silver, gold, diamond—there has been unbridled joy, a celebration of a life of service, a reminder of the ties that bind and an expression of affection for the history we share. There have been flags, bunting, visits, gun salutes, stamps and coins—an excuse, as good as any, to celebrate. But this jubilee is one that is more poignant. In the midst of these celebrations, we know that our Queen will stand alone, as she did during the service that farewelled her loved husband of some 73 years. And on that day we all saw her, we truly saw her: stoic and strong, yet human and frail and vulnerable. There was dignity in the midst of suffering, even if it was her own. In that moment, we realised that, though we will her on forever, even monarchs face the frailties of body and the sunsets that beckon us all. But, still, at 95, Her Majesty continues to serve, and passionately so. So this jubilee is one of gratitude—a pause to reflect on what a good life truly means, to ponder the place of non-partisan service and selflessness in a modern, robust democracy and to reflect on the values that sustain us as a free people.
Since the Queen's first visit to Australia in 1954, which was, in its day, a cultural phenomenon unlike any other in our history, the Queen has had a deep understanding and respect of Australia and Australians. It was best reflected in her action and words during and following the 1999 referendum on the republic. As a constitutional monarch she lived out her belief that monarchy must be above politics. The Queen played no role in that campaign, pledging to respect and accept the result. After that debate had passed, she said:
… I shall continue faithfully to serve as Queen of Australia under the Constitution to the very best of my ability, as I have tried to do for these past forty-eight years. It is my duty to seek to remain true to the interests of Australia and all Australians as we enter into the twenty-first century.
And so she has done. Over these past 70 years the Queen has shared our Australian journey. As she once said:
… since I first stepped ashore here in Sydney in February 1954 I have felt part of this rugged, honest, creative land. I have shared in the joys and the sorrows, the challenges and the changes that have shaped this country's history…
So, Your Majesty, on this Platinum Jubilee—a jubilee unlike any other—we, too, remember the joys and the sorrows, the challenges and changes of which Her Majesty has been a part. We honour her service. We honour her duty and her devotion. On behalf of all Australians, I offer our warmest congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on her Platinum Jubilee. God save the Queen.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:09): In her seven remarkable decades on the throne, indeed through most of our lifetimes, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has been a rare constant, an enduring, inspiring, growing presence of calm, decency and strength. When Winston Churchill first encountered her as a two-year-old at Balmoral, he reported his first impressions to his wife, Clementine: 'She has an air of authority and reflectiveness, astonishing in an infant'—clearly, Her Majesty started as she meant to continue. Churchill would eventually become the first of her long line of prime ministers in Britain, while Robert Menzies had the honour here.
No jubilee, no matter how happy, is without a tinge of sadness. This is her first without Prince Philip—half of a partnership so close that the tenderness could be glimpsed between the layers of formality and tradition. It is also a celebration of a reign that began with the premature death of her adored father, George VI. When he died, the young Princess Elizabeth was in Kenya, en route to Australia. The relatively carefree life she and Prince Philip had envisioned for themselves in those early years of marriage was over. Princess Elizabeth returned to England as Queen—the responsibilities of the throne on one shoulder; the sudden absence of her father on the other—not for the last time did she have to find the strength amidst her grief to measure up to the expectations of a nation, and the great weight of the institution into which she was born.
Unlike her forebears, Princess Elizabeth did not choose a new name for herself as monarch. There was no question that she would retain the name she'd had all her life. Already, she was giving a sign of the stability and continuity that she would provide—and, indeed, the continuity that royal women have provided. Over the past 184 years, the throne has been held by women for 133 of them. There have been just two women: Queen Victoria, for 63 years, and Queen Elizabeth, the first monarch to reign for seven decades.
When she fulfilled that interrupted plan to travel to Australia in 1954, she became our first reigning sovereign to visit our shores. It was also Australia's first televised event. Now, even if you discount the issues caused by thinking about something as exotic as travel during this time of COVID, her itinerary was not for the fainthearted: 57 towns and cities in 58 days. Those in charge of organising events had to synchronise their watches with a time signal from the ABC at 9 am each day.
Both here and in Britain, there have been so many prime ministers since then. Governments have come and gone. Our societies have enjoyed booms and endured hardships. Populations have grown. Television arrived and, eventually, so did colour. The faces of our societies changed. So did Australia's currency. Our place in our region evolved. Britain entered Europe, and eventually left again. Communism collapsed. The poles of power shifted and realigned. The world shrank. Opportunities grew. Space was conquered. The internet was born. Music expanded beyond vinyl, and eventually found its way back to vinyl. So many old certainties have been broken. New, more tentative ones have taken their place. Throughout it all, there has been Queen Elizabeth II. She is a queen who has let her humanity show. She has stood with us in times of hardship, even as she had endured her own.
As Queen Elizabeth once put it:
Like all the best families, we have our share of eccentricities, of impetuous and wayward youngsters and of family disagreements.
The nature of the bond between our nations is not what it was at the dawn of her reign. No longer parent and upstart, we stand as equals. And although our systems are no longer so inextricably intertwined, the affection and the unique nature of our friendship remains. Likewise, the affection and respect in which Her Majesty is held remains. In so many ways Queen Elizabeth transcends barriers. Even many Australians who do not hold with the principle of monarchy feel regard for her. You can be a republican, as I am, and still have the deepest respect for the Queen. She has done her duty with fidelity, integrity, humanity and, as she sometimes lets slip, a sly sense of humour. On behalf of this side of the House, I offer my sincerest congratulations and best wishes to Her Majesty for her Platinum Jubilee this year.
Debate adjourned.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (14:15): by leave—I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
MINISTRY
Temporary Arrangements
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:15): I inform the House that the Minister for Defence Industry is unavailable today because of the border arrangements in Western Australia. She will be represented by the Minister for Defence.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
COVID-19: Aged Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:16): My question is to the Prime Minister. Since the beginning of the year, at least 622 aged-care residents have died of COVID, more than double the number of deaths in the whole of last year. It's only 8 February. Will the Prime Minister admit responsibility for this crisis?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:16): The pandemic takes a heavy toll in this country, as it has over the course of this pandemic. Since the beginning of this year, it is true that, in aged-care facilities, 587 people, as at 7 February, have died with COVID. I note also that, since 1 January of this year, up until 28 January, some 4,141 people who were in aged care have passed away. Since the onset of omicron, some 682 people who had omicron have died in aged-care facilities, and some 9,141 people who were residents in aged care have passed away. It has been an incredibly tough time for those who have been working in those facilities, with the onset of omicron, and it has been incredibly tough for those families who have had to say goodbye to loved ones over that period of time. At every occasion, throughout the course of this pandemic, we have sought to provide every single support we possibly can to ensure that we can assist both the workforce and those who are engaged in providing care to people in those facilities.
While less than 10 per cent of those who have passed away in residential aged-care facilities may have died with COVID, the other issue that the government has been very focused on is not just those who have had COVID but the quality of care that can be provided to people living in residential aged-care facilities during this very challenging time. Some may wish to pretend that the pandemic and COVID cannot have an impact on the most vulnerable in our communities, but that would be naive, that would be misleading and that would be false. Our government will continue to do everything we can to support those in residential aged-care facilities and those working with them, as not only in Australia but around the world we work to try and provide support to those who are most vulnerable. We would seek the support of all, whether in this chamber or elsewhere, in joining together to help provide support and assurance to those who need our help and are getting that help, whether it's the clinical support they're getting through the aged-care facilities or, indeed, most recently, even now, help from members of our own defence forces who are going into support that important work. We will continue to make every effort, working with state and territory governments all around the country, to provide every support we can through this pandemic, where Australia has one of the lowest fatality rates in the world. (Time expired)
Economy
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:19): My question is to the Prime Minister. In an uncertain global environment it's crucial that decisions for our country's future are grounded in clear and consistent values and principles. Will the Prime Minister inform the House how the Morrison government's national economic plan is strengthening our economy for a stronger future?
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Just before I call the Prime Minister, the interjections on my left are too loud.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:20): I thank the member for Robertson for her question and her great work over the summer leading the inquiry into the social media bill, which is designed to stand up to trolls and big-tech companies. I thank you for the work you've been doing in listening to the genuine concerns of Australians.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: I don't know why those opposite are interjecting while I'm commending a member who is doing that work. Those opposite can explain themselves at another time.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order! Whoever made that unparliamentary comment—I didn't see who it was—I'd ask them to withdraw it.
Mr Watts: Mr Speaker, I believe you're referring to me. I said the Prime Minister was a fraud and I do not believe that is unparliamentary.
The SPEAKER: It is a unparliamentary, and I ask you to withdraw it.
Mr Watt s: I withdraw.
Mr MORRISON: It seems the trolls aren't limited to the internet!
Honourable members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: We're on track as a nation to have the lowest rate of unemployment in this country in 50 years. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our country in the months ahead, over the course of 2022, to have an unemployment rate with a three in front of it. This is an achievement of the Australian people—the business owners of this country and the workers of this country—who have pushed forward throughout this pandemic. At the same time, right now we have an unemployment rate of 4.2 per cent and an unemployment rate amongst young people of 9.8 per cent, half of what it was at the peak of the pandemic and the lowest level we've seen since 2008. Under our government, a million more women are back in work under the policies of our government and 700,000 jobs were saved by JobKeeper as a result of the policies of our governments. There are 220,000 Australians who are trade apprentices in training right now, which is the highest level this country has seen since records started in 1963.
Our economy is pushing out of this pandemic as one of the strongest economies in the world, and that sets up a great opportunity for this country. As we come out of this pandemic stronger than most of the advanced economies in this world, it isn't just about reclaiming what was lost over the COVID period; it's about a new era of economic opportunity for this country. We have maintained our AAA credit rating and business confidence is returning. All this is based on a strong plan—a plan of lower taxes and cutting red tape, a plan of investing in the infrastructure and skills development which will set us up for the future. Thirdly, it's a plan for reliable, affordable energy. Fourthly, it's a plan for a data and digital economy that will be in the top 10 of the world by 2030 and continuing to build our sovereign capability as we see a resurgence in the manufacturing industries of this country under our policies. That's the plan for Australia's future, a plan that Australians are backing and can back. (Time expired.)
Aged Care
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (14:23): My question is to the Prime Minister. On 2 February, when more than 500 people had already died of COVID in aged care this year and residents were being left without food and water, the minister for aged care services said the system was functioning 'exceptionally well'. Today in the other place he's again refused to say the system is in crisis. Why has the Prime Minister not sacked this minister?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:24): I'll ask the minister for aged care to add to my answer. As I remarked in response to a question earlier today from the Leader of the Opposition, this pandemic is taking a heavy toll on the entire world and on Australia. In particular, our most vulnerable and our frailest are in the most vulnerable of all positions. I think we all understand that. While I know international comparisons provide no comfort to those who have lost loved ones, we do know that the outbreaks in Canada, for example, are around 13 times greater than what we see in this country. We do know that Australia's fatality rate is one of the lowest in the world, certainly amongst the OECD countries. We do know that the investments that we have made—the changing of close contact rules and the investment in the boosted wage payments of aged care workers, including those working in non-care settings—are all assisting the sector to deal with a big challenge. But those who pretend that the pandemic can have no impact are misleading Australians and are diminishing the scale of what is a very difficult challenge. I will ask the minister for aged care to add further to my answer.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (14:25): I recognise that this has been a very challenging time for many people in aged care in Australia and, of course, around the world. In particular, over the course of the summer we've been working very closely with our aged-care facilities, and we have dispatched over 48 million units of PPE in 2022 alone. That includes a total now of 10.9 million rapid antigen tests to aged-care facilities, which commenced in August of last year, and it has included over 6.7 million this year.
Ms O'Neil: A point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister and the minister have now had two minutes to go to the point of this question, which is about the incompetence of the minister for aged-care services. Could they please address that key part of the question?
The SPEAKER: The member for Hotham would know that the question was directed at, in effect, the state of the aged-care sector, and the minister for health is being directly relevant.
Mr HUNT: In terms of the specific response to support the aged-care sector, which I would hope is the real concern of every person in this House, there have been 14.8 million units of masks, 17.5 million units of gloves, 5.9 million units of gowns and 3.9 million units of goggles. All of these are real actions that have been taken to support that sector. In addition to that, the changed furlough requirements were fundamental to ensuring continuity of workforce, in both the definition of a close contact and the capacity in critical sectors such as aged care for asymptomatic close contacts to work. That's been backed up by 80,000 shifts which have been put in place by the government and, in addition, the support for workforce retention and now the ADF.
COVID-19: International Travel
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (14:27): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. This week the Morrison-Joyce government announced the reopening of our international borders. Will the Deputy Prime Minister please update the House on how the aviation and transport sectors will facilitate international travellers and help boost the tourist economy, and is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr JOYCE (New England—Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of the Nationals) (14:28): I thank the honourable member for his question. I would also briefly like to acknowledge the great service of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II—both her service to the Commonwealth and her example to the world on the dignity of high office.
Obviously, tourism is incredibly important. I note for the member for Cowper that, in places such as Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour especially, which rely so heavily on what was a peak of 1.2 million passengers a month, passengers went down to merely 6½ thousand in the midst of the pandemic. This placed incredible stress on so many businesses throughout the member for Cowper's electorate.
But it is not only the member for Cowper's electorate. It has been seen in the tourism industry in places such as Uluru, Alice Springs and Kakadu in the member for Lingiari's seat, the Great Barrier Reef and the Whitsundays in the member for Dawson's electorate, Cairns and the Great Barrier Reef in the member for Leichhardt's seat, Carnarvon Gorge, Great Keppel Island and Mount Etna National Park in the member for Capricornia's electorate. And it goes on. In the member for Hunter's seat, who's not here today, it has affected the wineries of Pokolbin and Barrington Tops.
So it is with great pleasure that we once more open up our nation to get our tourism industry back onto the footing that it was on beforehand and to meet the position that we'd reached, especially on an economic basis—with the great work of the Treasurer—with exceptionally low unemployment and economic growth.
The CEO of Qantas last night contacted me directly, telling me: 'It's great news about the international borders. It means Australia is truly open for business. It's fantastic for the industry, as a whole, and for the regions that have been doing it tough without the flow of tourists and labour. Thanks for staying the course.' In noting 'staying the course', he of course notes the great support that was given by the Commonwealth government to keep the airline industry in a position where they can be the greatest beneficiary of this new opening. This is going to be incredibly important—that people such as Virgin Australia also get back in the air. The CEO, Jayne Hrdlicka, said, 'Today's announcement made by the Australian government is an important step forward in reigniting the travel industry and opening Australia to the rest of the world at a critical time of recovery. This will also come as positive news for travellers looking to reconnect with loved ones in Australia and will be a huge boost for our tourism industry.'
Of course, it goes without saying—I go back to the member for Cowper and the immense work he has done for the travel agents. We will note that the travel agents will also be looking forward to the reopening of these borders and the reinvigoration of their income stream.
COVID-19: Prime Minister
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:31): Yesterday the Prime Minister announced the defence forces would be operating in aged care, after repeatedly ruling it out—on 13 January, 19 January, 4 February and at other times. Why does the Prime Minister reject good ideas time and time again, always taking action which is too little too late and after a problem becomes a crisis?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:31): When will the Leader of the Opposition stop trying to politicise the pandemic? Time and again, the Leader of the Labor Party continues to misrepresent the facts. I simply said in January—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat for one moment. I'm trying to listen to the answer. I can't hear the answer when there's such noise on my left. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: I made the point, quite openly and honestly, that the suggestion that the defence forces could be a replacement workforce for the aged-care sector was not a realistic option. That's all I've said. That is not what the government has now done. I was very clear yesterday about what the targeted involvement would be of the defence forces, as I asked them on the very day the Leader of the Labor Party accuses me of saying they had no role. On the very day, or thereabouts, I spoke to the Vice Chief of Defence Force and asked him to work—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: It goes to relevance. The Prime Minister said, 'I've seen the suggestion that the defence forces can go in and operate in aged care.' No, that's not the case. That's what you—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There's no valid point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON: The Leader of the Labor Party can snarl and growl all he likes, as he has done over the course of this pandemic. He has constantly been negative when it comes to the serious challenges that our country has faced. He can seek to downplay Australians' efforts, in how we've come through this pandemic, with his constant negativity, snarling and growling, but the facts are these: on each occasion, we have worked to address the situation that we have had before us. On each and every occasion, we have sought to apply the resources—whether they be the defence forces, our own Public Service officers and those around the country—to address the needs that have been required, particularly in the aged-care sector, where our defence forces were applied in Victoria during the second wave and are now being used in a similar way with targeted interventions, not with the wholesale replacement of the aged-care workforce. If the Leader of the Opposition—the Leader of the Labor Party—were actually interested in solving the problem, he would have attended himself to the facts of those issues. The Leader of the Labor Party is all about exploiting this pandemic, not about addressing it.
Religious Discrimination Bill 2021
Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:34): My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that, if your Religious Discrimination Bill is passed, even with your amendments, a school can sack an unmarried teacher because she's pregnant, if it's against the school's beliefs; a doctor can tell their patient that their sickness is a punishment from God because they're gay; and a student can be expelled because they're transgender? We all support protecting religious groups from victimisation. But why are you using the dying days of this parliament to push through a Trojan Horse for hate that will mean more discrimination, not less?
The SPEAKER: Just before the Prime Minister rises, I'm concerned—and I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House—that the question involves legal opinion. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr Bandt interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Does the member for Melbourne wish to rephrase the question?
Mr BANDT: I wish to address your point of order.
The SPEAKER: The member for Melbourne has the call.
Mr BANDT: Mr Speaker, that goes to questions about things that the Prime Minister has said previously about what is in this bill and what is not in this bill and the effect of this bill. So it is asking about things that the Prime Minister has already said. It is about what the effect of legislation will be—not about giving legal advice about an existing situation but, 'What will be the case if the legislation is passed?' If you can't ask government ministers, 'What will be the effect of your laws if they're passed?' because it amounts to legal advice, then none of us can ask anything about any government legislation in this parliament.
The SPEAKER: I accept the explanation of the member for Melbourne. The Prime Minister has the call.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:36): I'm very happy to answer the member's question. If he is seeking a legal opinion on the matters that he has raised, about what the impacts are, as he has outlined them, then he should check with the member for Isaacs, because the very issues that the member raises are a result of the laws introduced by the Labor Party in relation to transgender children or children of different sexual orientation. Those laws, to allow the expulsion of those students, were introduced by the Labor Party when they were last in government.
I'm asked whether I should be coming here and making changes to laws that were introduced by the Labor Party that have the exact effect of what you are speaking about. What I am introducing and what I introduced at this dispatch box was a set of positive laws which weren't about the Sex Discrimination Act—positive laws that prevent discrimination against people of religious faith or who have no religious faith. The issues that are contained in that bill do not provide the powers to do the things that you talk about. Those powers exist in the law as it stands today, as was introduced by the Labor Party when they were last in government.
So our laws are about speaking to all of those Australians that have come from places far and wide around the globe—and we were at a Greek Orthodox church today, but we could easily have been at a Maronite church or at a Coptic Orthodox church; we could have been at those churches. I can tell you that their parishioners would say this to you, as Bishop Tarabay—a good friend of many in this chamber—has said to me: they came here to flee religious persecution and discrimination, and they came to this country believing this was a country where those things would be protected, and they are finding that not to be their experience. So I'm prepared to legislate on behalf of our government. I took this to the Australian people and they supported us, and they supported, at the ballot box, those protections being provided to people of religious faith.
Now, if those in this chamber want to speak about multiculturalism and how great a multicultural society it is, then they must acknowledge the role of faith and culture in this country, and if they want to support multiculturalism in this chamber then I urge them to support the bill, because I know the faith communities of suburban Melbourne, whether they be the Sikhs or the Hindus, or the Muslims of Sydney and Melbourne, or the Christians of north-western Sydney or Queensland or southern Tasmania or northern Tasmania or wherever you happen to be. If you support religious freedom and opposing religious discrimination, support the bill. (Time expired)
Economy
Mrs McINTOSH (Lindsay) (14:39): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer remind the House how the Morrison government's strong and principled economic management is driving unemployment to its lowest level in 13 years and how we plan to generate even more jobs for Australian families and businesses into the future? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative policies?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:40): I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. I had the opportunity to join her recently in her electorate and visit an earthmoving business that was investing in new equipment by using our immediate expensing provisions.
When the coalition came to government, the unemployment rate was 5.7 per cent and rising. When the coalition came to government, there were one million fewer women in work. And, when the coalition came to government, under Labor, one in eight manufacturing jobs were lost. Now, after the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression, the picture is very different. The unemployment rate, at 4.2 per cent, is at a 13-year low and is on track to being at a 50-year low. There are a record number of Australians in a trade apprenticeship. And there are 1.7 million more Australians in work today than when Labor was last in office. Our economic plan is working, investing in skills, lower taxes—
Ms Coker interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Member for Corangamite, if you want to keep interjecting, you'll be doing it from outside.
Mr FRYDENBERG: infrastructure, the digital economy and manufacturing. The member for Rankin said that the biggest test of the Morrison government's management of the pandemic will be what happens to jobs. It was a challenge we readily accepted, and it was a test the member for Rankin's colleagues wished he never set.
The Leader of the Opposition can't be trusted with the Australian economy. The Leader of the Opposition has never had a Treasury portfolio. The Leader of the Opposition said that our tax cuts for small business and families were for the top end of town. And the Leader of the Opposition has been in partnership with the Greens and, given the chance, would be in partnership again. The Leader of the Opposition, as a product of the unions, is too weak—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on direct relevance: this is not relevant. He was invited to talk about other policies. This isn't a policy. This is just—
Mr Albanese: Gibberish.
Mr Burke: Gibberish.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Treasurer is being directly relevant to the question. The Manager of Opposition Business?
Mr Burke: So that we understand your ruling, Mr Speaker, does this mean that, if a question asks for alternative policies, any character assessment can be given, any political rant can be given, anything at all can now be said? Is that the new standard for this chamber? Because it's not a policy approach—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat.
Mr Conroy interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland will leave under 94(a).
The member for Shortland then left the chamber.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House.
Mr Dutton: That was a very good ruling, Mr Speaker, I might say. Mr Speaker, the way in which the Manager of Opposition Business firstly scoffed at your ruling, if I might say, and then the way in which he showed disrespect to the chair—I think his reflection on the chair, frankly, Mr Speaker, was out of order, first point. The second point is that the Treasurer was entirely within the standing orders, absolutely relevant to the question asked of him. The only aspect of inconvenience here was the proper character assessment from this guy, who has got a complete glass jaw.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. To the point of order raised by the Manager of Opposition Business on relevance, the Treasurer was expressly asked in relation to economic management and driving unemployment. He was also asked about whether he was aware of any alternative policies. The Treasurer spoke for some time on economic management. He was not, in my view, attacking the Leader of the Opposition personally—
Hon ourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer is being directly relevant, and I give the Treasurer the call.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The Leader of the Opposition expressly supported $387 billion of higher taxes and, if given half a chance on the Treasury benches, he will put higher taxes on the Australian people. The Leader of the Opposition, a product of the unions, is too weak to stand up to the unions. The Leader of the Opposition—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, this is now putting you in an untenable situation. This is embarrassing. This has nothing to do with any policy. This is some rant about some alleged union I work for or something—I don't know what it is. But it's an attempted, personal, character assassination which has nothing to do with the question that was asked.
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will return to the substance of—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will return to the question.
Mr FRYDENBERG: The reality is, when it comes to economic management, the Leader of the Labor Party cannot be trusted. He stands for higher taxes. He stands for higher spending, like a $6 billion cash splash—
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker—
Opposit ion members interjecting—
Mr FRYDENBERG: Mr Speaker, he just can't stand there.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition—
Dr Chalmers interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Rankin! I'd ask the Leader of the Opposition not to come to the dispatch box early if he's not making a point of order, please.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Government members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Prime Minister
Aged Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:47): My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is the job of governments to look after the most vulnerable in our society, and that under this Prime Minister at least 622 aged-care residents have died of COVID this year? As of Friday there are almost 12,000 aged-care residents and workers infected with COVID in more than 1,100 facilities. Up to a quarter of shifts are going unfilled. Why has the Prime Minister failed to do his job?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (14:48): I can confirm, as I did in response to the Leader of the Labor Party's earlier question, that the data I have is that in 2022—so far this year—some 587 deaths are reported in residential aged-care facilities that are COVID related. And I note the advice that was provided to us just this week by Professor Brendan Murphy, who continues to make this point, that there were some 4,141 Australians living in residential aged-care facilities who have passed away since 1 January this year. And many Australians, we know around 1,000 per week on average, pre-COVID would pass away in aged-care facilities each week. And what Professor Murphy has reminded us is that, when people are passing away with COVID, that does not necessarily mean that they have passed away because of COVID. That is the medical advice. That is the health advice. And our task is to ensure that all of those in aged care—
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on my left.
Mr MORRISON: can receive the best quality aged care that can possibly be provided under the severe strains that are being imposed on the aged-care system as a result of the pandemic.
Ms Coker interject ing—
The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite.
Opposition members interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: Those opposite may wish to dismiss those pressures. They may wish to pretend that they are not there. And I think that that would diminish the great sacrifice and work that is being done by people in our aged-care system to try and manage that support as best as they can, people who have been provided with record support by the Commonwealth government. I do not believe that the challenges that we're seeing in aged-care facilities should be a subject for the opposition to seek to exploit for political gain in this way. I would urge the opposition to work with the government to address this challenge and not to undermine the confidence of Australians in an aged-care sector that is clearly under pressure because of the pandemic. All Australians are working as hard as they can to provide the best care they can.
Economy
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (14:50): My question is to the Treasurer. How is the Morrison government's long history of cutting taxes helping Australian families and businesses keep more of what they earn? How are our values of keeping taxes low securing our economic recovery and is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order in relation to the question?
Mr Burke: Yes. You've previously made a ruling about alternative policies being allowed to be asked about, but it hasn't been raised at the end of a question before as to what your ruling is on alternative approaches where it doesn't go to policies. Standing orders are quite clear that ministers can be asked about their area of responsibility. You have allowed that to be extended to policies that are not within their responsibility. To allow that tag and for it to go to approaches beyond policy takes it completely beyond the responsibility of the minister, outside Practice and outside standing orders.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for the point of order. I am happy to stand corrected on this, but from memory you raised that on day 1 in relation to policies and approaches. I'm happy to have that debate with you on another day, but my recollection is that you raised both those issues on day 1 of me taking the chair. In my view, the question remains within the standing orders. I will rule that the question is valid. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—Treasurer) (14:52): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I thank the member for Wentworth for his question. I had the opportunity to join him recently in his electorate to visit a small business to see how they had benefitted from JobKeeper and now their doors are open and they're continuing employ a significant number of staff.
When the coalition came to government we took over from a Labor Party who had put in place more than $90 billion in higher taxes. We remember them: the carbon tax, the mining tax, higher taxes on superannuation, higher taxes on income earners. Since we've come to government, we've been cutting taxes—cutting taxes for families, cutting taxes for small businesses to their lowest level in 50 years. We've been putting in place the largest investment incentives, using the tax system, in Australia's history. The net result of our initiatives has helped drive the unemployment rate to 4.2 per cent, the lowest in more than 13 years, and now on a track to be the lowest in some 50 years. That is our economic record: cutting taxes and creating more jobs.
But we can't put our economic recovery at risk with a Leader of the Opposition, a leader of the Labor Party, who believes in higher taxes. You see, Labor has opposed our tax cuts every step of the way. The Leader of the Opposition said that our tax cuts for families were the 'the top end of town'. He described families and small businesses as the top end of town. The Leader of the Opposition went to the last election supporting a retiree tax, a housing tax, more taxes on superannuation, more taxes on income earners and a tax on family business. Do you know what the Leader of the Opposition said about those taxes? That Labor had 'a strong mandate' for them. And he supported the carbon tax. He said he was determined to get on with it. He supported the mining tax and he said that the mining companies should pay for it. That was his language—language you can't walk away from. The Leader of the Opposition has also, at a previous Labor conference, moved a motion in favour of death duties—death duties!
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?
Mr Burke: A point of order: the Treasurer has now gone to completely inventing things that are not true, going down a curious path of—
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will go to the point of order.
Mr Burke: The point of order is: how can it be relevant to a question when it's not his ministerial responsibility and it's not even true? How does that find its way into being allowed now in question time?
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business knows full well that I can't be an arbiter of fact as to whether something is true or not. The Manager of Opposition Business knows that.
Mr Burke: I respect what you're saying in terms of you having to be the adjudicator of what is true and what is not, but you can make rulings about what is in the responsibilities of a minister, and this cannot be.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House on the point of order.
Mr Dutton: Firstly, it's very clear that the Leader of the Opposition is not a minister, so the point about ministerial responsibility, of course, has no relevance to him. If the Leader of the Opposition has a point to make in terms of claiming to have been misrepresented, there's a form of the House where that can be dealt with. That's after question time, not during the course of question time.
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I'm having trouble hearing the Leader of the House because of the interjections on my left.
Mr Dutton: I'm very happy to speak up so those opposite can hear as well. This chamber is a contest of ideas and a test of character. If he doesn't want his character tested, he shouldn't be sticking his hand up for the job that he seeks.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order on the point of order?
Mr Albanese: Yes, exactly. My concern with where this is going, and it includes the comments just made by the Leader of the House, is that if it is in order for a question in question time to just ask for a general spray, where it is in order for people to say anything at all, then what will occur in this chamber in terms of the dignity of the House is not a situation which will bring this House's standing up but will reduce it further. We had a debate in this House at 12 o'clock today. It was relating to gender and behaviour, but we spoke about the need to lift standards, and this sort of stuff will just drag it—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. What I would say, as I have previously said in the last year, referring particularly to the Jenkins report that we discussed so well and debated so well today in a respectful manner, is that I believe that the Australian parliament and the Australian people are looking for a greater degree of respect in this place—on that I do agree.
In relation to the original point of order that was raised by the Manager of Opposition Business: when the question is asked about alternative approaches or alternative policies, the Treasurer is entitled to address any alternatives other than the government's, but I would remind the House that that should be done in a respectful manner and not by way of personal attacks. The Treasurer has the call.
Mr FRYDENBERG: As I was saying about the leader of the Labor Party, previously he has said, 'I am pleased to move this resolution, calling upon the government to consider the imposition of an inheritance tax.' That is what the Leader of the Opposition has said previously to a Labor Party conference. No wonder the member for Fenner has said that the Albanese supporters were known as the 'Bolsheviks'. The Albanese supporters were known as the bolsheviks. (Time expired)
MOTIONS
COVID-19: Aged Care
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:00): I seek leave to move:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) in the third year of the pandemic, aged care remains in crisis, with almost 12,000 aged care residents and workers infected with COVID in more than 1,100 facilities as of Friday, and over 600 deaths among aged care residents this year;
(b) tens of thousands of aged care residents are still waiting for a booster dose;
(c) aged care facilities have been left without rapid antigen tests and PPE;
(d) aged care residents have been left without food, water and medical care because the Government's surge workforce strategy was inadequate; and
(e) despite aged care being in crisis, the Minister for Aged Care Services has declared the sector is performing exceptionally well; and
(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:
(a) immediately sack his Minister for Aged Care Services; and
(b) apologise to aged care residents and their families for his failure to listen and act on countless warnings about the continuing crisis in aged care.
Leave not granted.
Mr ALBANESE: I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) in the third year of the pandemic, aged care remains in crisis, with almost 12,000 aged care residents and workers infected with COVID in more than 1,100 facilities as of Friday, and over 600 deaths among aged care residents this year;
(b) tens of thousands of aged care residents are still waiting for a booster dose;
(c) aged care facilities have been left without rapid antigen tests and PPE;
(d) aged care residents have been left without food, water and medical care because the Government's surge workforce strategy was inadequate; and
(e) despite aged care being in crisis, the Minister for Aged Care Services has declared the sector is performing exceptionally well; and
(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:
(a) immediately sack his Minister for Aged Care Services; and
(b) apologise to aged care residents and their families for his failure to listen and act on countless warnings about the continuing crisis in aged care.
This aged-care system is in crisis and this government is too distracted by its internal war to worry about—
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:03): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no further heard.
The House divided. [15:07]
(The Speaker—Hon. Andrew Wallace)
The SPEAKER (15:09): Is the motion seconded?
Ms O'NEIL (Hotham) (15:09): It's seconded. The Prime Minister's continuous attempt in question time today to minimise this crisis is a disgrace!
The SPEAKER: The member for Hotham will resume her seat. The Leader of the House.
Mr Dutton: I move:
That the motion be put.
The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition business?
Mr Burke: There is no question before the House at the moment. A question hasn't been stated, and the call should be returned to the member for Hotham. If a motion was moved, it's not allowed at this point. The call should go back to the member for Hotham.
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Mr Burke: You'll have to sit down and have another go. We know you will, but—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Order. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. You're seeking the call?
Mr Dutton interjecting—
Mr Burke: No. He just had the call. It goes back to the member for Hotham!
The SPEAKER: The call does go back to the member for Hotham. The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Hotham has the call.
Ms O'NEIL: Mr Speaker, 622 people have lost their lives in aged care this year, and the Prime Minister seeks to minimise those deaths.
The SPEAKER: The member for Hotham will resume her seat. The Leader of the House.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:11): I move:
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:12]
(The Speaker—Hon. Andrew Wallace)
The SPEAKER (15:13): The Manager of Opposition Business.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:13): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The government is in chaos, aged care is in chaos because the people opposite are not doing their job.
Opposition members: Hear, hear!
An opposition member: Keep going.
Mr BURKE: Keep going? He does not know how to do his job, the one opposite. The Prime Minister goes missing every time there's a crisis.
The SPEAKER: Order. The Manager of Opposition Business will withdraw that comment. The Manager of Opposition Business, was that a reflection of the chair that you just made?
Mr BURKE: No, I pointed to the Prime Minister. I think you're doing your job. I don't think the Leader of the House is. I don't think the Prime Minister is. And certainly the minister for aged care isn't.
The SPEAKER: When the Manager of Opposition Business says 'your', he's reflecting on the chair.
Mr BURKE: I assure you, Mr Speaker, if you go back and check the video, you'll see I was pointing squarely to the person who got the last procedure wrong.
The SPEAKER: Alright. The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Leader of the House.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:14): I move:
That the member be no longer heard.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the member be no further heard.
The House divided. [15:16]
(The Speaker—Hon. Andrew Wallace)
The SPEAKER (15:17): The question now is that the motion be disagreed to.
Ms COLLINS (Franklin) (15:18): If this Prime Minister and the minister had done their job, thousands of residents in aged care would be—
The SPEAKER: The member for Franklin will resume her seat. The Leader of the House.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:18): Now that they've run out of time for question time, I move:
That the question be now put.
The SPEAKER: The question is that the question be now put.
The House divided. [15:20]
(The Speaker— Hon. Andrew Wallace)
The SPEAKER (15:22): The question is that the motion be disagreed to.
The House divided. [15:22]
(The Speaker—Hon. Andrew Wallace)
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister) (15:23): I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:24): Mr Speaker, earlier in question time, before this debate, there was an unparliamentary remark made by the member for McMahon. I'd ask you to ask him to withdraw it.
The SPEAKER: The member for McMahon has the call.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:24): I withdraw.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Defence and Leader of the House) (15:24): 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.
STATEMENTS
Personal Explanation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:25): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to give a personal explanation.
The SPEAKER: Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to be misrepresented?
Mr ALBANESE: I do, Mr Speaker, repeatedly by the Treasurer.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has the call.
Mr ALBANESE: I won't go through all of them. Suffice to say he just stood there and had a contest with the Leader of the House for the backbench cheer squad. A range of things he said were simply not true.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:25): I move:
That leave of absence until 29 March 2022 be given to the Honourable Member for Hindmarsh for parental leave purposes.
Mr ALBANESE: If I may briefly speak to my motion, could I congratulate Mark and Daniela on the birth of Charlie Dominic Butler, who was born yesterday morning—a little brother for Ellie and Isaac. Both Daniela and Charlie are doing well, and I'm sure I speak on behalf of the entire chamber in wishing them all the best. We look forward to meeting young Charlie down the track and to Mark being able to return.
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Aged Care) (15:26): May I offer congratulations to my counterpart and his wife, Daniela, on the birth of little Charlie.
Question agreed to.
DOCUMENTS
Access to Committee Documents
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:28): Pursuant to the resolution of the House of Representatives on 11 October 1984, I present a report on access to committee documents.
Parliamentary Service Commissioner
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:28): I present the annual report of the Parliamentary Service Commissioner for 2020-21.
Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Report Nos 12 to 15 of 2021-22
The SPEAKER (15:28): I present the Auditor-General's reports Nos 12 to 15 of 2021-22. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
Documents made parliamentary papers in accordance with the resolution agreed to on 28 March 2018.
MOTIONS
Council of the National Library of Australia
Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) (15:28): I seek leave of the House to move a motion for the election of a member to the Council of the National Library of Australia.
The SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:28): I'm not aware of this. I'm sure we can do it at a later hour, but there's normally consultation for something like this, which, if it has occurred, has not reached me.
Leave not granted.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Coalition Government
The SPEAKER (15:29): I have received a letter from the honourable the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The Government's focus on itself instead of on the problems affecting Australians.
I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:29): This is not a government; this is a shambles, a rabble defined by division, disunity and dishonesty. And that's not the problem; the problem is that the result of that has led to dysfunction, and the government's incompetence is having a real impact on real people. This is a government which, in the lead-up to Christmas, were too busy giving each other pats on the back and high fives to worry about the crisis that was impending. Riding around in a racing car around Bathurst—remember that? The great pretender was pretending he was a racing car driver, saying he was looking through the windscreen, not looking through the rear-view mirror. Well, if he were looking forward, he would have been planning for the crisis, because that crisis is at its most acute in aged care.
There have been over 600 deaths this year. There are 1,176 outbreaks right now. Tens of thousands of aged-care residents have not got their booster shots. Over half the aged-care workforce have not got their booster shots, 12,000 residents and workers are infected as we speak, and between 20 and 25 per cent of staff are off each and every day. Residents—in 2022, in Australia—are unable to get food and water and are having their wounds untended because no-one is looking after them. They're unable to get a shower or even get a wash. This is the real-life experience of older Australians today. Most tragically, older Australians, many of whom we know are in aged care affected by dementia, are scared, frightened and alone, locked in their rooms, in their last days. Their loved ones are unable to go and say goodbye.
And yet we have this hand-picked minister who has shown complete contempt for the fundamentals of doing his job. He's a minister who is too busy to attend committee meetings and be held accountable and too lazy to know what's going on in the sector. What is his response when he finally turns up to a committee meeting? He says the sector is going 'exceptionally well'. That's his response. This is a prime minister who has said repeatedly that it wasn't appropriate for the Defence Force to go into aged care: 'No, they can't assist there.' He just yesterday changed his mind on that and sent the Defence Force into aged care, one month after the former Liberal Premier Mike Baird, who now leads one of the major aged-care providers, called for it. It follows, of course, the flip at the National Press Club on providing any support at all to aged-care workers, with a $400 payment—one to be given in March and one to be given, almost with how-to-votes, in May. What a cynical exercise by a cynical political government! But what they haven't taken account of is that it's a pro rata payment. Do you know what the figure is of direct-care workers in aged care who are permanent full time? It's six per cent. Six per cent of people will get the $400. It says everything about the need for secure work in this country—the fact that a sector like that is in a position where just six per cent are permanent full time. The aged-care crisis is indicative of the way this Prime Minister and this government approach every issue. It's always too little, too late, and it's always the case that they ignore a problem until it becomes a crisis.
In the first summer when I was Labor leader, we had the bushfire crisis, where the Prime Minister said that he didn't hold a hose, showed no empathy and acted, in the words of the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, as 'more concerned with politics than people'. The second summer was the summer of the vaccine neglect—'It's not a race!'—that led to the failure when it came to lockdowns and the slow rollout of the boosters. And the third, of course, was rapid antigen tests. 'It's not my job; it's not my job.' He thinks his job is dressing up. Whether it's a racing car driver, a fighter pilot, a cook, or a hairdresser washing someone's hair last Friday—if you want photo-ops he's your guy, but if you want someone to govern the country you should vote Labor when the election comes, because the fact is that this Prime Minister is too busy pretending to do other jobs to do his day job.
The crisis continues, and not just in aged care. Real wages are going backwards, insecure work is increasing, productivity is flatlining, living standards are falling, people are becoming more and more insecure, and yet this parliament sits for 10 days in six months because they have no agenda for this term, let alone an agenda for a second day in office. This is a government in which the latest PM, when he got the job, described the government in his own words as a 'muppet show'. At least The Muppet Show was educational! The problem is that this government never learns anything from its mistakes. They're just repeated over and over again, because it's all politics, no substance. At the height of the bushfires, the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, called that out. She called that out at a time when people were losing their lives, people were losing their homes and communities were under siege.
The Deputy Prime Minister said he regarded the Prime Minister as 'a hypocrite and liar from my observations and that is over a long time.' That was after he had served as Deputy Prime Minister the first time, sat in a cabinet with the then Treasurer for six years and served in parliament side by side with him for 15 years. This was a considered opinion in the context of the Prime Minister saying that no-one told him about a reported sexual assault just metres from his office for two years, even though his own office knew, people in parliament knew, it occurred in the defence minister's office and the defence minister's chief of staff went to work for him just after the alleged incident occurred.
I say this to the Australian people—and I don't think, I know this to be the case. Imagine if this government fought for you with the energy that they fight each other. Imagine if they had that commitment, that diligence and that passion that they show when they fight each other. If they did that, they'd be fighting for the interests of aged-care residents. If they did that, they'd be fighting for the interests of aged-care workers. If they did that, they'd be fighting for the interests of people in insecure work. If they did that, they'd be fighting for people whose living standards are going backwards because wages aren't keeping up with the cost of housing and rent, the cost of petrol and the cost of food and groceries. Young people are struggling to buy a house. This government says that it's all okay, it's all hunky-dory, even at the height where you have people in aged care being locked away and being unable to get the basic essentials of care, and there isn't food on the shelves of supermarkets. When we have an absolute crisis, the government are all spin and no substance, which is why they don't deserve another term in office.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) (15:39): What do we hear from those opposite? We hear more negativity, at a time when Australians are looking for leadership. They're looking for leadership in the middle of a global pandemic—
Honourable members interjecting—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Llew O'Brien ): The assistant minister will pause for a moment. Members will leave the chamber quietly, thank you. The assistant minister has the call.
Mr HOWARTH: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. Australians are looking for leadership, and they're looking for messages that are not negative. That's what we hear continually from those opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition—constant negativity. They're constantly talking down the nation, constantly talking down the government. Well, I'm really proud to stand up in this House, as a member of the Morrison government—a member of the Australian government—as the Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services and as the member for Petrie, because I'm part of a government that does focus on Australians and that does care about what they need in order to live their lives to the full.
Jobs and employment are things that are close to my heart. There are now more Australians in work today than when I was elected, in 2013, when Labor lost office. There are so many more Australians in work today. The level of unemployment is at the lowest level recorded in the last 12 years. In March 2021, Australia became the first advanced economy to have more people in employment than before the pandemic. That's great for local people—that they have jobs available and that there are advertised options. I was talking to someone in my own electorate this week about the opportunity to move from permanent part-time work into full-time work within a school system. She was jumping at that opportunity, and she will talk to her principal about it.
That is 13,242,000 Australians in employment. In December alone, employment rose by 64,800 jobs and the level of youth unemployment—for those people aged 15 to 25, who make up 15 per cent of the Australian population—dropped below 10 per cent. That's the first time that has happened since 2008, during the global financial crisis. That's just fantastic, and I want to commend the young people around Australia that have taken those opportunities. It's such good news.
The shadow Treasurer, who's sitting opposite right now, said, 'The biggest single test of the government's management of the pandemic will be what happens to the unemployment rate.' Well, I agree with the member for Rankin. What we've seen is the unemployment rate going down and down and down, and the Australian government is very happy that this is happening. We represent Australian people, we're there for Australian people, and we're working hard for them every day.
Today, there are more than 146,000 more aged Australians in work than what there were in March 2020. If you go back to the beginning of the pandemic, there are 146,100 more older people in jobs today. Many people listening might not know that the number of manufacturing jobs is also increasing. There are over one million manufacturing jobs in Australia right now—Australian made, which we're all proud to buy. Prior to the pandemic, there were much fewer than that.
We're getting the settings right for business. Whether they're small and family businesses or larger businesses, they employ most Australians, and, so far, we're pleased with what they're doing and we're backing them into the future. That's why the government's JobKeeper program supported 3.8 million jobs and over one million businesses. In fact, we know that it saved 700,000 Australian jobs. Without JobKeeper, which the Morrison government introduced and delivered, 700,000 more Australians would have been out of work. In my own electorate, there's the Aspley Devils, which is a rugby league club down in Brisbane City Council. Its general manager, Mark Newman, said: 'JobKeeper was a fantastic program. It kept our employees tied to the club, which meant, the minute we got the word that we could reopen, we called the staff and they were back to work the next day.'
The opposition leader calls business owners the top end of town, and we certainly know the shadow Treasurer calls them that. But we know that they are just hardworking Australians: mums and dads, small and family businesses that had their shoulders to the wheel and were often the last ones to pay themselves. To back Australia's small-business led recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, we're extending the SME Recovery Loan Scheme to 30 June this year. Well over $7.3 billion has been provided to businesses since the scheme commenced in March 2020 that has flowed through to employees and created the low unemployment rate we have today. Businesses were helped with the cash flow boost and so many more wage subsidies, and I can't stress too much the boosting apprenticeship scheme, which has got so many young Australians into apprenticeships
If we look at taxes, in my electorate of Petrie over 70,000 residents have benefited from the tax reductions the Morrison government has introduced. That's more money in people's pockets to help with living costs—bread, milk, shoes and uniforms for families whose kids went back to school just yesterday. At every opportunity we've looked to cut taxes. I can't say that about those opposite. They look at every opportunity to raise taxes. We look at reducing them and letting people keep more of their own money. We have small business taxes that are the lowest in over 50 years, and we know that income tax rates are falling further and further as well. With the legislation we've introduced, the maximum tax rate for people earning up to $200,000 is 30c in the dollar, and that will help so many people in my electorate. If you think of all those people who work overtime—tradies, nurses and others—they won't be hit with higher rates of tax, which will make a big difference in their lives. Of course the first $18,200 earned is tax-free. Leadership is about meeting the needs of Australians today and understanding their needs tomorrow.
On Saturday at my mobile office a young person aged 12 years, Harriet Peters Kingshott, gave me a copy of a poem she had written. I was heartened by its positivity and its observation of our wonderful country from different perspectives. Harriet won a national award for 'Gumtrees', which I have in my hand at the dispatch box, and here's an excerpt:
While the humans chattered away, the animals would watch from afar
Dancing to Waltzing Matilda, strummed upon the guitar.
Their farmer hats didn't fit and their suspenders were really quite baggy.
Their cat was outright lazy and their dog was dirty and shaggy.
What a great poem from young Harriet who is 12 years of age. I met her and her mother, Claire Peters, at my mobile office on Saturday, and they were positive about Australia's future. I'm really proud of Harriet Peters Kingshott and other young people like her in the Petrie electorate as well as youth all around the country. I met another young man in my electorate on Saturday when I had a game of snooker with him and he really carved me up. His name is Joshua Hands and he lives in North Lakes. He's 16 years of age, and he is the under-18 champion for snooker and billiards. I started off strongly and potted a few balls, but he did run away with it and really carved me up.
I mention these young people because Australians want positivity from their government. They don't want the negativity of the opposition leader and those opposite, which those listening to this broadcast will continue to hear when the next speaker gets up to speak. As the Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services, I'm encouraged by young Australians. The fact is that they are taking and accepting the challenges, whether through apprenticeships or training that they're getting through JobTrainer or through the Youth Jobs PaTH program that has supported 88,594 young people into work. We're investing $7.1 billion this year alone in skills and training.
I hope not to hear one more Labor member say, 'You're not doing enough for TAFE.' I remind them that we're putting more money into TAFE skills and training than any Australian government in history. I've heard this line and I'm sure the member for Hinkler has heard it as well—they drag it out every three years and state governments do the same, very boring—but the fact is we're investing, we're supporting Australians, we are focused on all Australians and will continue to be. The fact is that in this pandemic the Australian government—the minister for health, the Chief Medical Officer—has saved lives and livelihoods better than anywhere else in the world. That's the record that Australians can be sure of when they vote at the next election. Don't risk Labor and a weak leader. Support the coalition, and we'll continue to deliver for you.
Ms O ' NEIL (Hotham) (15:50): We saw two very different approaches exhibited in question time today to the critical question of aged care. We had the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the Labor Party asking detailed questions, advocating for the almost 200,000 people who rely on this sector for their lives and livelihoods. Then we had the Prime Minister on the other side of the chamber doing something that I find truly extraordinary—that is, using his position as the leader of this country to minimise the crisis in aged care and minimise the fact that 622 people in aged care have died from COVID just this year.
How can we expect the government to do anything about this crisis when the Prime Minister, instead of acknowledging what is happening today in aged care, is attempting to essentially diminish it to say that other people died in aged care, so the people who died of COVID don't matter? I actually can't believe that he's using his platform in this way. Deputy Speaker, you're a member of parliament who represents constituents. I know that you, like me, must be getting many emails from people in your electorate who are suffering because of the negligence and incompetence of this government and, in particular, Richard Colbeck, the relevant minister. We know that today people in aged care are not getting showered, not getting food and water, and not getting their wounds tended to.
I spoke to the daughter of an aged-care resident whose mother has been in lockdown in her aged-care home for three weeks now. Her mother is deaf. She is sitting in her room on her own. The only person she sees every day is a nurse in full PPE. She's confused, and her daughter is continuously trying to explain to her what's going on. This is what's happening today in our aged-care system, and the Prime Minister diminishes the crisis.
We should never forget that the staff in aged care are also deeply affected by what is happening today. Aged care was already staffed at crisis point before the pandemic hit. We have nurses and carers in this country doing everything they can to protect the people who rely on them in aged care. They're getting no support from the government. The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Foundation were in Canberra today. We heard from Sue, Wendy and Linda. We are asking these people to do the impossible; we are asking them to choose between helping someone who's fallen out of their bed and assisting someone who might be in pain. Deputy Speaker, imagine you and me having to do that job every day. It is inhumane. The Australian parliament should not be asking Australian workers to make those choices.
We've had 662 people die in aged care this year. There are 12,000 current COVID infections. Almost half of all aged-care homes have a COVID outbreak. This has been going on for weeks and weeks. Where is the government? Richard Colbeck goes to the cricket during the worst of this outbreak, not for one day, not for two days, but for three days running. He goes to the cricket while people in his care suffer in misery. He should be focused on this crisis. The Prime Minister does some ridiculous photo op, washing someone's hair, when people in aged care are not being showered. We hear, endlessly, that they're sending each other abusive text messages. Come on! This is a crisis. It needs the full focus of government; instead, they're focusing on themselves.
If Scott Morrison would come and talk to the aged-care nurses, as many Labor members of parliament did today, they would give him a very clear message: this aged-care crisis is not just about COVID; this is about nine years of disgraceful neglect of a sector that cares for some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. We have a royal commission, which the government has just cast aside because it's inconvenient. Find me a person in this country who will say that there's been any improvement since the aged-care royal commission reported a year ago. They do not exist. What was the point of spending two years going through that exercise? Aged care is not a sideshow; it is not some thing that government does just because it feels like it. These people need care. If we are lucky, you will age and I will age. We might end up in aged care too. This is an urgent priority for the federal government, and if Australians want to see aged people in this country looked after appropriately, then at the next election they are going to have to choose a new government.
Mr PITT (Hinkler—Minister for Resources and Water) (15:54): The Leader of the Opposition always wants to talk about 'pretenders', but he wants to pretend that facts don't exist—that it's all about feelings and not about facts. So here are a couple of facts that we can put on the record—the last three years of delivery by this government, by the numbers: 1.1 million jobs since the pandemic hit; 11½ million Australians benefiting from tax relief; 700,000 jobs saved through JobKeeper; 71.3 per cent of trade and exports now covered by free trade agreements; 815,600 female business operators, as at August 2021; 220,000 trade apprentices—a record high, the highest since records began in 1963; a 20 per cent reduction in emissions; electricity bills down five per cent; 1,213 major transport projects, supporting 100,000 jobs; over 99 per cent of homes and businesses—more than 12 million—with NBN access; over 1,200 mobile black spot base stations now funded, with over 900 already built. There are 135,000 new home projects backed by HomeBuilder. Ninety-three per cent of Australians are protected with vaccines, and we are ranked second in the world for pandemic preparedness, according to the Johns Hopkins index. Seventy defence vessels and 700 vehicles are being built in Australia—and the list goes on and on and on.
But we should come back to the government's focus—that is what this MPI is about—and it is our focus that is helping to deliver those results. In my own portfolio, the results are outstanding—outstanding! I spoke earlier about the 220,000 trade apprentices. The resources sector has put on almost 6,000 of those. That is more than they've put on, combined, for a number of years. They are doing what they need to, in the height of the pandemic. They are doing what they need to, to deliver training and skills for Australians. For all of those mums and dads out there looking for somewhere for their kids to get jobs—well, there is a job for them in the resources sector.
If we want to look at what the results are, the most recent Resources and Energy Quarterly will have them. We'll simply go to coal, a major contributor, to start with: exports totalled $23.8 billion in the three months to December 2021—nearly $24 billion in just 12 weeks, for just one export product. That is 156 per cent higher than for the same period in December 2020. And what is the result? Even with just that one product, that is a massive increase in royalties for state governments and that is an increase in taxes being paid. This is how we pay for the essential services that Australians rely on—schools and roads and hospitals. It's how we meet our commitments. In Queensland, it was reported they got $2½ billion that fell out of the sky! They didn't even expect it. So the Queensland Labor government's got an extra $2½ billion to play with that they didn't have before. That is off the back of the hard work of the men and women in the sector. Liquefied natural gas or LNG exports were $18.3 billion in the three months to December 2021. Once again, that is 148 per cent higher than in the same period last year.
There are risks involved. We have the Leader of the Opposition proposing that there's a change of government: that we—or not 'we', but the people—put the opposition into government and that the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister Albanese. Clearly, we are opposed, because what will happen is very, very clear. We have seen the member for Melbourne, the Leader of the Greens, out in the press in recent days claiming they will shut down these future projects in the resources sector. They have a target of over 100 projects. I will speak briefly about just a handful. There's Scarborough in WA: roughly $15 billion of investment, of FID, taken by Woodside. This means jobs for Australians; it means more money into our economy; it means more export dollars; and it means more reliability of supply for our domestic gas. There's the Barossa, up in the north, for Santos; it means an upgrade for the Darwin LNG project, for backfill; it means an extension of life; it means more jobs; and it means that we maintain those assets for Australia's benefit. Those are just two projects. I can go on and on and on. We could get across to the Beetaloo and the thousands of jobs for the Northern Territory. What this government is trying to do is bring those jobs forward—bring forward that economic activity; bring forward those opportunities for Australia and its people.
Those opposite, in combination with the Greens, will stop those projects; those projects won't be delivered if they are in government. It is a seamless transition and alignment with those opposite. It should be absolutely dismissed; that should never happen. We need to act in our nation's interest, and that is what this government will do.
Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (16:00): Before I start on the MPI, I would like to say to the resources minister, while he's here in the chamber: Stop PEP-11. You can do it with the stroke of a pen. I'll pass you one across the chamber.
We're now in the third year of a pandemic, and this government is focused on itself instead of doing its job and protecting vulnerable Australians. We saw this over the summer when Omicron tore across New South Wales—including in my electorate on the Central Coast, where one in five people are aged over 65. We saw record daily case numbers, a severe shortage of rapid antigen tests, and deadly outbreaks in aged-care homes. What did the government do? They denied the problem and shifted the blame, instead of protecting some of the most vulnerable Australians—frail, elderly Australians, many living with dementia, isolated, alone and afraid in aged-care homes.
We have a crisis in aged care. We have more than 10,000 active COVID cases in aged-care homes across Australia. Tragically, 622 people have died from COVID this year in aged care, and the government denies there's a problem. While there are tens of thousands of aged-care residents who still haven't had a booster, and there are thousands of shifts unfilled because workers have COVID or are isolating, aged-care homes and staff are in crisis. Staff are overworked and underpaid, and they deserve more than this government. There are people like Leanne, who's an aged-care worker from Lake Haven from my community on the Central Coast. Leanne told me their situation is dire. She said: 'Aged-care workers are exhausted and at breaking point. I've seen people crying whilst at work through sheer frustration, helplessness, anger and despair. All of us are anxious about going to work, unsure what we will be confronted with—staff shortages, positive rapid tests and never enough time to do all that is required.'
What has this government done? Have they supported aged-care workers' calls for better wages, better conditions and safe staffing levels, to help them care for the most vulnerable, frail, older Australians? No. What they've done, in a cynical move on the eve of an election, is to offer aged-care workers up to $800 in a bonus payment.
An opposition member: It's offensive.
Ms McBRIDE: It is offensive. It's insulting. Aged-care workers deserve better. Most aged-care workers are paid around $22 an hour—$22 an hour. What they need is an urgent pay rise, like the Productivity Commission recommended, not a small pay-off on the eve of an election.
For nearly a decade this government has been denying the crisis in aged care, a crisis largely of its own making. Over the summer, when COVID cases were at their worst, where was the minister for aged care? The minister was at the cricket—as our shadow minister has said, not for one day, not for two days, but for three days. While omicron was raging through aged care, while staff were there without PPE, while people couldn't get a rapid antigen test, while people were alone and afraid and isolated, the minister was at the cricket.
One of the biggest problems we faced over the summer was a shortage of rapid antigen tests. In my community on the Central Coast, people were desperate for rapid antigen tests—including one of my constituents, whose four-year-old granddaughter is in palliative care. To visit her in hospital, her parents need to have a negative rapid antigen test every three days. After they used their last test they contacted my office, desperate. This is what the grandfather said: 'We have tried to purchase RAT kits but have been unsuccessful. It would be unthinkable if their daughter was to die and they could not see her because of the unavailability of RAT kits.' This should not happen. This should not happen to this grandparent, to this family or to anyone in Australia. It's devastating.
The government was warned last September, and earlier, to shore up rapid antigen tests. And what did they do? They left the most vulnerable people exposed and at risk and families unable to visit loved ones who were in palliative care. Families should not be forced into this position because of a shortage of RATs. Test kits should be available freely to all Australians. As I said, this government was warned, and what did they do? They failed to act, leaving the most vulnerable Australians at risk. They promised to supply more rapid antigen tests to aged-care homes, but according to the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation more than a quarter of aged-care staff say their workplace is not giving them free RATs.
The HSU national president, Gerard Hayes, said recently there are active outbreaks in hundreds of aged-care facilities across the country, yet workers can't access RATs and PPE. They are on the front line with very little protection. The Morrison government has effectively abandoned the sector under the premise of living with this virus. We need a government that stops focusing on itself and starts putting the health and safety of Australians first. We need a change of government.
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (16:05): I follow on from the member for Dobell and acknowledge her work as a pharmacist prior to coming to this parliament in 2016. I acknowledge her work particularly in providing medications and the like in the mental health space. Certainly she's a good person; I acknowledge that. She would also acknowledge this government's work with the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule. Indeed, we have listed so many medicines—in fact, 857 new medicines—on the PBS since 2019. That has come about because we actually got the economic measures in place in 2013 that allowed us to list new drugs for such things as—I can recall early in the piece—cystic fibrosis and other ailments which people, unfortunately, endure.
When we go to health we look at the 163,105 new aged-care home-care packages. That is dealing with health because these people need our attention. There are 502,413 people on the National Disability Insurance Scheme. That was one of the great hallmarks of Julia Gillard, but the right funding wasn't put in place. But we fixed it, just like with the PBS. I know that in the last days of the Labor government they were very much reconsidering putting some vital drugs on the PBS—and actually didn't—because they'd run out of money because of economic mismanagement. But, because of the measures that we put in place when we took over government in 2013, we were able to put those essential medicines and drugs on the supply list.
More than 128,000 Australians are supported by headspace each year. I appreciate that is very much a bipartisan thing, but new headspace centres are opening all of the time, particularly in regional areas, where it is a particular issue. I'm pleased to say that that is taking place. More than 1,400 nurse placements for the regions have been put in place and helped and supported by this government. Ninety per cent of families are getting access to a childcare subsidy of between 50 and 80 per cent. These are all things which this government has put in place because we are focusing on the issues that matter.
You heard from the Treasurer in question time today that when we took government the unemployment rate was 5.7 per cent and rising. We have addressed that. The figure is now very much below that. Under Labor, one in eight manufacturing jobs were lost. There were one million fewer women in work under Labor than there are now under a coalition government. There are 1.7 million more Australians in work today than when Labor was in office. We should get ticks for that. I know out there in the real world, out in voter land, they are looking at this government and they are saying we have addressed those issues. There are indeed more than 60,000 jobs available in regional Australia now. I stand in front of the member for Nicholls, and I know that in his electorate there are many jobs that are perhaps needing to be taken up by people from the cities, just like there are in my electorate of the Riverina.
What did we see from those opposite at the last election? They wanted to impose $387 billion of higher taxes on the Australian people—indeed, a retirees tax and a housing tax. Let me say: Labor are trying to fly under the radar this time as we head towards the polls. Who knows when the polls will be? The Prime Minister does, but the rest of us are just working diligently for and on behalf of everyday, ordinary Australians on those bread-and-butter issues.
But, Mr Speaker, rest assured that while the opposition leader is trying to take a low profile, perhaps hopefully to the Lodge, don't believe what Labor says it will do prior to the election. After the election, if they get Treasury benches, they will hit Australians hard. They will hit Australians very, very hard with new taxes to pay for their spending habits.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (16:10): I rise to speak on the government's focus on itself instead of on the problems affecting Australians—a great choice for a matter of public importance debate.
Whilst it's been great to hear the talking points trotted out by those opposite, I just want to point out a couple of facts. The previous speaker, the member for Riverina, made a good tweet about cricket the other day. He was my cricketing captain, so I have a lot of respect for his very good commentary on cricket. But he made an erroneous statement just then. Obviously, Mr Speaker, as you well know, the highest-taxing governments as a percentage of GDP were both Liberal governments: Howard and Morrison. The Howard government and the Morrison government are the two highest-taxing governments. We just need to remember that from those opposite.
I did notice in the polls recently that the Australian people are starting to realise that these guys are not good when it comes to dealing with the books. We have a Treasurer who is the self-appointed king of car parks in his own electorate, rather than focusing on the Australian people. From memory, only one car park was in Queensland. This bloke gave himself three car parks, so how can he be focusing on what's in the national interest? And he seems to be obsessed with the member for Rankin. He is obsessed, problematically, with the member for Rankin, rather than with doing his own job.
I don't mind if people cluster together; that's what political parties are about. I've seen people cluster together when they don't have a cause; I walked through them this morning, coming up to Parliament House. There is no problem in having a rabble without a cause, but when they're the government clustered together and their only vision seems to be not to be Labor—their whole unifying force is not to be Labor—then that's not good enough and Australians are suffering.
We can talk about the number of jobs available, but it also helps when you slam the borders shut and don't let workers in. People who did 100,000 or 200,000—I'm looking at the member for McMahon—jobs previously, when the borders were open, now have those jobs being done by other people.
Mr Bowen: Yes.
Mr PERRETT: We also have some concerning numbers of people dropping out of the workforce; they aren't looking any further. I would suggest that there are some significant dangers out there. I know that the housing issues are very complicated, but I called into one of my poorer suburbs, Acacia Ridge, in the last few weeks and the rosy vision being trotted out by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer is not what's happening on the ground, with insecure work and the limited number of working hours for people. Concerning stories are coming out of Acacia Ridge, where people were talking about pooling their money together to feed their pets. I have never, ever seen that in modern Australia—a place where they say that every child is winning a prize. That is not the Australia that I see on the streets of Acacia Ridge or hearing about from people.
People are worried about their housing and housing opportunities, and they're worried about being able to go out. So many people aren't spending and not going to local businesses because they can't get a rapid antigen detection test. I know that personally myself. When my son had COVID at the beginning of January we could not take him out because there was a three- to four-hour wait to be tested, and we could not find a rapid antigen test—in Toowoomba, Dalby, Chinchilla, Brisbane, Gympie or the Gold Coast. I had every family member I could find looking for a rapid antigen test and we could not find any. Thankfully, it has started to improve.
But we've got a government that is obsessed with fighting each other and is not doing its job. We can't have that combination of circumstances. We have people who are worried about their kids going back to school because they haven't been able to be vaccinated—the younger kids particularly. We have parents who are worried about their aged relatives. As we've heard from the member for Hotham, there are horrific circumstances in our aged-care facilities. This is an area that we know the government failed to get right two years ago and then said, 'No-one could've seen this coming.' We've got a minister who says, 'There is no problem.' The Prime Minister slips up and says 'crisis'. Next minute we've got the armed forces in our aged-care facilities in 2022. Who would have thought that this nation would come to that?
Mr DRUM (Nicholls—Chief Nationals Whip) (16:15): To have the Labor Party effectively put forward a motion accusing the government of focusing on itself doesn't quite ring true when you look around regional Australia, certainly when you look at the National Party, at my colleagues and their electorates—I'm sure Liberal Party seats would be no different. What are we doing here? We're coming to Canberra so that we can meet with our ministers so that we can bring home the projects and programs that we need for our people. When you look around the seat of Nicholls, you can see that the Echuca-Moama bridge has just been completed. That's not a government focused on itself; that's a government focused on a project that needed to be built for the last 60 years. We've gone and built it. It's an investment of over $130 million just from the federal government but also with $100 million from Victoria and $100 million from New South Wales. We got that project built.
We've got $208 million sitting on the table to get the Shepparton bypass started. That's not a government focused on itself; that's a government focused on what our people need. When you drive into Shepparton, you'll see a couple of enormous museums. One is the Museum of Vehicle Evolution, which has an incredible history of cars, trucks, motorbikes and a whole range of other fantastic items. Then you drive a little bit further on and you'll see the Shepparton Art Museum. They're huge investments by this government, giving that region what it needs as its most important projects.
We've got $5 million going into a new building for La Trobe University on the city campus in Shepparton. It's a fantastic project. One of our most liked and respected organisations, ConnectGV, has just been able to build a brand-new home for people in the Goulburn Valley who are dealing with disabilities. This federal government has provided them with $2.5 million for a new home there.
We've also got a rail upgrade going into the Shepparton and Seymour area. There will be $400 million of this federal government's funding, put through the Victorian government, to upgrade that rail line, which has been left behind by the Victorian Labor Party. The Victorian Labor government have done up the Bendigo line, the Ballarat line and the Geelong line, but they have left the Shepparton line. We had four services a day. This federal government putting money into that line will see nine services a day. It's not as good as those other areas, but effectively an incredible change is coming as a result of a government that's prepared to look at the connectivity that we need so that we can get better access into Melbourne with our rail services.
As you drive through Mooroopna, you'll see this incredible new building there, where the federal government has invested in the fruit industry. It's one of the leading industries in the Goulburn Valley, and here's an opportunity for that industry to move into the modern age with a world-class sorting process that's going to take hundreds and hundreds of photographs of every piece of fruit that will go in there. That fruit will be flicked left, right, dropped down, moved across and graded by size, shape, colour and blemishes. This is the type of technology that this federal government has invested in with the industry, to drive that industry and to make it even more competitive on the world market.
This government has also invested in the CBD of Shepparton, right in the heart of the Goulburn Valley. Many regional cities around Australia have malls that don't really work, that have become unsavoury places, as their centre point. Shepparton is going to implement slow-moving traffic, thanks to an $8 million grant from this government to give the CBD of Shepparton what it needs. Many cities around Australia will be looking at this project to see whether or not it works; to see whether or not this courageous decision by the CBD, by the chamber of commerce, by the council—with the support of the federal government—can actually create slow-moving traffic with a whole raft of parking options in Shepparton; to see if that has the capacity to build the pedestrian traffic and make it easier for the shoppers. This is something that is incredibly important.
I can just keep reading through the list of all the works that we've been working on as hard as we possibly can. We come to Canberra. We talk to the ministers. We get back into our electorates and give our communities what they need. That's not looking at ourselves; that's looking at our people. (Time expired.)
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (16:20): Something happens to the Morrison government each year as they head towards summer. I don't know whether it's visions of lying on a beach—whether it is here or Hawaii—but something happens that makes them more than drop the ball, it makes them ignore the warnings they're being given in any particular year. Let's begin with 2019, when they ignored the warnings of fire chiefs from around the country to be better prepared for what turned out to be the most horrific fire season that this nation has seen—its scale, the death toll, the destruction of homes and of the environment. But, of course, the Prime Minister doesn't hold a hose, not when he's in Hawaii.
In 2020 they ignored the many warnings about getting the vaccine rollout right. That it was a race. That it did matter. That we did have things ready to go and ready to be executed as soon as the supplies, which belatedly arrived, landed on our shores. They ignored that warning, and we paid the price for that—well they didn't, but older people did. Hundreds of older people found themselves without vaccines; the rollout was too slow to get them vaccinated in lockdown. They suffered deprivations because of this government. And then there were those who died because they had not been vaccinated.
And so this last summer, in the lead-up, people said, 'What we need is a rapid antigen testing strategy.' I said it in here! I was organising Zooms about it with my small businesses in October, with the local manufacturer Innovation Scientific in my electorate, with global leaders who said, 'We need a plan.' But the government thought it knew better. It didn't bother planning; its eyes were on that summer chill, sipping—I would hate to think what cocktail it is that they sip by their pools—mai tais or whatever. The other thing the government ignored was booster shots, getting boosters into older people, getting those vaccines into the arms of older people. It wasn't the Prime Minister's job, he said. He was happy to shampoo someone's hair, but only if they were well under 75!
This is the failure we have that compounds all the other failures that have occurred, which means we have, right now, hundreds of people who have died in aged care. We have thousands of residents who are locked down. And multiply that for the families who are no longer able to just pop in and see their husband or their wife, their mum or their dad, their grandma or their grandpa. They can't. The only way they can see them is in full PPE and if they have a rapid antigen test up their sleeve.
Now, I just want to deal with this issue where the government says, 'We're providing rapid antigen tests to aged-care facilities.' Well, there's a caveat on that. One of my facilities called me to say, 'You know we only get it when we have an outbreak?' The government doesn't seem to understand this yet: the rapid antigen test is a tool to help prevent outbreaks and to foresee when there might be someone who is COVID-positive. You need to have those screening things happening all the time; you don't wait until there is an outbreak. Right now, across the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, there are husbands, there are wives, there are daughters and there are sons sitting there and wondering, 'When are we going to be allowed back in to see our family member?'
They're suffering, but, more than anyone, the residents are suffering. And it isn't for want of the fantastic work that the aged-care workers are doing. Among others this morning, we heard from Jocelyn, who comes from the Blue Mountains. I spoke with Jocelyn and with Annette about why they had travelled to Canberra. Jocelyn had finished a night shift and headed down here. Annette is nearly 80 but will not stop fighting. She says she has been fighting for a couple of decades to see improvements in aged care, and she's not going to give up until she sees them. They were here to tell stories about what it's like, about the choices that they have to make, where they have to race to someone who's fallen on the floor, a gentleman lying in bed in pain, someone calling out or someone wandering into somebody else's room. These are choices no-one should be asked to make—whether you tend a wound or whether you shower someone.
This is what the government's distraction, its obsession with itself, has led to. It is more worried about itself. Those opposite are more worried about their own jobs than they are about making life better for the people who made this country what it is.
Mr STEVENS (Sturt) (16:25): I appreciate the opportunity provided by the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the priorities of this government and the decisions it has made in the interests of the people of Australia. Yesterday, a momentous decision was made by the National Security Committee of Cabinet to dramatically reopen the categories of and exemptions for people entering our country—to reopen our international border—effectively saying that people who have the proper vaccination status and of course the proper visa status will be able to enter our country. I'm particularly excited about the international tourists, who will now be able to return to our country and start spending money in our economy.
It's been a difficult two years, I know, for businesses in my own electorate that rely on international tourism. I'm lucky enough to have Penfolds Magill Estate in the centre, at the heart, of my electorate, and they are a significant attraction for overseas tourists. I know that particularly northern Queensland and other areas that rely on international tourists have had it very tough over the last two years, so it's great to see our government taking the first opportunity, when health and other advice says it's safe to do so, to reopen our border.
This is an example of a very significant decision that this Morrison government has taken in the interests of the people of Australia. It was, of course, just as significant to close the international border. To have closed our international border in that way has never happened in my lifetime and nor probably in the lifetime of anybody in this parliament. It was necessary. It was important. It has kept us safe. But it was just as important that we took the opportunity yesterday to reverse that decision, apart from the vaccination restrictions that remain sensibly in place.
The decision is very important to our export businesses. I know my former employer Michell Wool was significantly impacted by people being curtailed from meeting with customers and their supply chains around the world. It's a business that exports to 42 countries around the world. Obviously, people being able to travel and engage with their customers and their suppliers, and having people come to this country and do the same, is very important for international commerce. We are an exporting nation. Export income makes an enormous contribution to our income as a nation. We've got tens of thousands of businesses that export, so the border changes are an excellent outcome for those exporting businesses.
It was a few weeks ago now that I had to keep refreshing my computer screen when the ABS published the unemployment statistics particularly for my home state of South Australia. It said that our unemployment rate was 3.9 per cent. I thought, 'This can't be right.' I was pleasantly surprised that it was the case. I downloaded the historical data and thought, 'God, has it ever been this low before?' The answer is no, never. Since records began in 1978, the unemployment rate in South Australia has never been as low as 3.9 per cent. Of course, our national unemployment rate has a four in front of it. The Reserve Bank governor is saying it's going to have a three in front of it soon. It has already got a three in front of it in South Australia. No-one could ever claim that the federal government's policy settings do not directly contribute to excellent economic statistics like that.
In many ways, unemployment is the most important economic indicator, because it's so vital to the livelihoods of everyone to have a job, to be able to provide for themselves and their families and to have that economic security for the future, so to have these record-low unemployment statistics in this country goes to show that we're making decisions as a government that are paying very significant economic dividends for all the people of Australia.
It's been a tough two years—there's no doubt about that. We've had to make decisions on the health side that have had economic impacts, and we've equally made decisions on the economic side to mitigate those impacts. The economic data—not just unemployment but other statistics as well—show the benefit of those decisions. I have a confidence that we're on the other side of the worst health challenges of the pandemic, particularly the recent omicron surge that has been prevalent in my home state of South Australia, which until recently had escaped major outbreaks, and other states like Queensland and Tasmania as well. We're on the other side of these challenges, I hope, but most importantly we've got a government that knows how to make health decisions and the economic decisions to match them that not only keep us safe but also keep us economically strong and resilient.
I commend the decisions that we've made as a government, and I appreciate the opportunity provided through this matter of public importance proposed by the Leader of the Opposition to comprehensively point out just how safe and secure the Morrison government is keeping the people of Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The discussion has concluded.
STATEMENTS
Personal Explanation
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (16:30): Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?
Mr WATTS: I do, Mr Speaker, quite grievously.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.
Mr WATTS: In question time today, when talking about his 'social media bill', which is designed to stand up to trolls, the Prime Minister described me as a troll when he made reference to, 'It seems that the trolls aren't limited to the internet.' This statement can't possibly be true, because the word 'troll' is not defined anywhere in the Social Media (Anti-Trolling) Bill. Indeed, the word does not appear anywhere in the bill other than in the title, a fact that the Attorney-General's Department has told the Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety, referred to by the Prime Minister, is misleading, given that the bill is about 'defamation and defamation alone'. Indeed, the eSafety Commissioner has said that the Prime Minister's continuing conflation of defamation reform and online safety is 'not ideal' and is making her job harder by causing confusion amongst the targets of online abuse. Indeed, given these facts, if anyone was engaging in trolling in question time today, it was the Prime Minister.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) (16:31): by leave—On 17 December last year, on behalf of Australia, I signed the Free Trade Agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the Rt Hon. Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP, UK Secretary of State for International Trade. Today, it gives me great pleasure to table this agreement and the accompanying national interest analysis for parliament's consideration.
Australia and the UK are both trading nations that share a commitment to liberalised, free trade underpinned by our shared heritage and values. Our nations also share a closely aligned strategic outlook and we cooperate across a wide range of foreign policy, defence, security, intelligence, trade and economic issues.
The Australia-UK Free Trade Agreement is a gold standard agreement. It is the most liberalising agreement signed by Australia with a major trading partner, outside our agreement with New Zealand. It will liberalise trade between our two countries, creating jobs and opportunities for both our citizens. And it will send a message to the world that both countries believe in the benefits of free trade and a rules based system.
This agreement will immediately eliminate tariffs on more than 99 per cent of Australian goods exports to the UK, currently valued at around $9.2 billion upon entry into force. That will make Australian exporters selling goods to the UK more competitive, creating new opportunities to reach more customers and grow their business. Australian households and businesses will save around $200 million a year, with tariffs on almost all British imports eliminated on entry into force.
The Australia-UK FTA will be an historic agreement for Australian farmers. In the early 1970s, when the UK turned to what was then the European Communities, it left our farmers out in the cold and searching for new markets. Our farmers proved resilient and innovative, tapping into growing Asia markets, where they continue to successfully operate today.
This FTA rights that wrong and provides our agricultural producers with access to the UK market again and will enable them to compete on an equal footing with competitors, including the European Union.
Our farmers will have improved access to more than 65 million UK consumers, who value safe, sustainably produced products with the strong provenance Australia offers.
Barriers to Australian exports will be removed across key products including wine, seafood, grains, fruit and vegetables, honey, nuts, short and medium grain milled rice and olive oil.
Tariffs on beef and sheepmeat will be completely eliminated after ten years with safeguards for another five years; tariffs on sugar will be completely eliminated over eight years; and tariffs on dairy will be removed over five years.
Tariffs on all Australian origin industrial goods, except ammonia and aluminium, will be eliminated on entry into force and the remaining tariffs over three years.
This agreement will also build upon our strong people-to-people links to make it easier for Australians and Brits to travel and work in each other's country.
There will be new opportunities and certainty for Australian business.
Australians will be allowed to stay in the UK for three months to grow their business and forge business links, or, for investors seeking to establish a branch of their business, the ability to stay in the UK for a year.
Our businesses can send managers and specialists to the UK for three years on a corporate transfer, and graduates for a year.
Australians entering the UK on a contract to supply a service, or as an independent professional, have the same opportunities of stay as European Union nationals for up to a year.
There will be legally binding rules and access to the UK government procurement market for Australian suppliers of goods, services and construction services—including SMEs and Indigenous-owned businesses. This market is worth an estimated half a trillion dollars annually.
Australian businesses will have the guaranteed right to bid for UK government procurement opportunities in a wide variety of areas, including education, legal and taxation services, as well as construction services and public works concession contracts, at the national and sub-national levels.
UK businesses will also be able to bid for government contracts in Australia, in line with our existing open government procurement framework. Australia has, however, maintained reservations in priority public policy areas, such as small and medium enterprise and Indigenous procurement, the protection of essential security, health and welfare services, and other specific exceptions requested by state and territory governments.
We've made skilled mobility easier with the removal of economic needs testing on businesses wanting to employ an Australian in the UK, or a UK national in Australia, for the categories identified in the FTA.
This will reduce red tape for Australian companies and bring treatment of UK nationals in Australia to the same level enjoyed by nationals of our other FTA partner countries.
The agreement will provide a best practice framework for professional services regulatory and accreditation bodies to reduce or eliminate barriers, such as licensing and registration requirements and processes, through direct collaboration with their counterparts.
A side letter to the FTA sets out future improvements to Australian and UK working holiday and youth mobility programs, to allow participation up to the age of 35 and for three years, without specified work requirements.
A joint declaration alongside the FTA details extensive mobility pathways available for our citizens to work in agriculture and agribusiness in each country.
Australia will also establish an innovation and early career skills development pilot to pioneer streamlined mobility opportunities for UK citizens.
Together, these settings are designed to support a bounce-back in two-way mobility as both our countries emerge from the challenges of COVID-19, and to promote the expansion of two-way services trade and investment.
The UK is already a significant investor in Australia, with the third-highest stock of foreign direct investment, which was $123.5 billion in 2020.
The preferential Foreign Investment Review Board screening thresholds in the FTA, combined with added certainty through the commitments Australia has agreed, will promote even higher levels of UK investment across the Australian economy.
The FTA also provides high levels of guaranteed access for Australian investors in the UK investment market, high-standard investment protections and significant transparency regarding treatment for Australian investors in the UK. This will further boost the considerable existing Australian foreign direct investment in the UK ($134.1 billion in 2020).
Australia and the UK have agreed not to include an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism in the FTA, reflecting the confidence we have in each other's legal systems.
The pitfalls and constraints of paper-based trade became evident during the pandemic. Improved efficiency through paperless trading will be enabled by a commitment in the Australia-UK FTA to facilitate electronic trade administration documents.
Barriers to digital trade will be reduced through commitments to recognise electronic contracts and methods of electronic authentication, including electronic signatures. Strong rules on data flows will create a more certain and secure online environment. The agreement will enable cross-border data flows that are critical to all kinds of businesses, and prohibit unjustified data localisation requirements, whilst ensuring high standards of data protection.
The FTA recognises that Australia and the UK have high standards of protection for IP rights and robust legal systems underpinning these rights.
Under the FTA, Australia has agreed to make all reasonable efforts to become a party to the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs.
This will make it easier for designers to file applications for design protection in other countries, and will result in an extension of the period of protection in Australia from 10 to 15 years.
Australia and the UK have also agreed to commence discussions on enabling reciprocal access to their respective artist resale royalty schemes.
These schemes ensure artists receive a portion of the sale price when their work is resold through an art market professional such as an auction house or art dealer.
Australian artists cannot currently access the UK's artist resale royalty scheme, so this agreement will allow them an additional source of income, and promises to be a significant benefit for our Indigenous artists, in particular.
The FTA will not require any changes to Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme or require increases in the price of medicines in Australia.
The FTA aims to support the high levels of environmental protection in Australia and the UK, as appropriate in a trade agreement, including recognition of the importance of achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.
The labour chapter is our most comprehensive to date and is consistent with the groundbreaking Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
For the first time in Australian FTA practice, this agreement also includes a dedicated provision on modern slavery, including efforts to ensure that private and public sector entities operating in our respective territories take appropriate steps to prevent modern slavery in their supply chains.
The agreement recognises the important role that innovation plays to support economic growth by stimulating competitiveness, increasing productivity, encouraging investment, and promoting international trade.
I'm proud to say this agreement contains Australia's first-ever chapter dedicated to innovation.
In that innovation chapter, we have agreed to establish a strategic innovation dialogue to promote trade-facilitative innovation policy and trade in innovative goods and services, and to cooperate on mutual interests.
As with all proposed treaties, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will now have the opportunity to review the full text of this agreement, before providing its report and making its recommendations in due course.
Given the considerable benefits and opportunities this FTA will bring to both Australia and the UK, I look forward to the agreement entering into force as soon as possible I encourage all businesses and stakeholders to become familiar with its outcomes and be ready for its implementation, which I hope will occur this year.
As an open-trading nation, our future prosperity depends on Australian businesses continuing to be competitive, to be innovative, and to be successful in new markets.
Trade agreements help create opportunities for businesses and people to grow and succeed. This creates more jobs and more skilled people to fill those jobs.
This is why our government is pursuing an active trade-negotiating agenda and why Australia is continuing to advocate internationally for open, rules based trade and investment.
Coalition governments have concluded almost all of Australia's most significant FTAs, including this latest agreement with the UK. And we continue to expand the market opportunities available to Australian business through ongoing negotiations, including with the EU and India.
When the Australia-UK FTA enters into force, around 75 per cent of Australia's two-way trade will be covered by free trade agreements, up from 27 percent in 2013.
This represents preferential access to almost three billion customers through our extensive FTA network.
I commend this agreement to the parliament and hereby table the Australia-United Kingdom Free Trade Agreement with its national interest analysis.
I take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, Simon Birmingham; former UK trade minister Liz Truss; and current UK trade minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan for being party to the negotiation of this agreement. It is an historic agreement. It is one that sets our two nations up for the future, and I have the great honour of tabling the Australia-UK FTA.
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (16:47): Thank you to the minister for his contribution on this matter and for all of his efforts in the trade portfolio, as well as those of the department and, of course, his personal team in his ministerial office. Australia has a rich history of trade and foreign investment with the United Kingdom. Before that, of course, we know our First Nations peoples traded internationally for thousands of years with the communities of South-East Asia. But, without doubt, the UK is certainly our oldest trading partner of the modern era.
Like many other Australians, I have British heritage. Indeed, until early 2016, I too was a British citizen. My dad moved over here in the early 1950s and was one of the first employees of British Petroleum. He worked at the Kwinana Oil Refinery, sadly now closed. This investment from a British company in our country and in my state of Western Australia built the town of Kwinana and the suburbs of Medina and Calista, in which I was born and which I am now very lucky to represent in this place. These days, the UK-Australia trade relationship is worth over $30 billion, and that is only going to grow, as Britain has abandoned the European Union and the UK now has to seek new markets.
We in Labor know that the vast market potential for Australia now and into the future lies in our region. The Indo-Pacific is the fastest-growing region in the world, and it's on our doorstep. The member for Grayndler, the Labor leader, has referred to this recently as 'the privilege of proximity', something my former colleagues at the Perth USAsia Centre, at the University of Western Australia, have known and have been talking about in Perth for many years.
However, it is fair to say that the rise of ecommerce and digital trade, turbocharged by the effects of COVID-19, has meant that Australia's geography is less of a barrier to trade with the UK and Europe than it once was, especially in services that can be delivered digitally. Following the decision by the UK to exit the European Union, it was clear that bilateral trade agreements were to be pursued as a matter of priority. Indeed, I understand that, having not negotiated a trade deal since the 1970s, the UK government sought the advice and expertise of Australian trade negotiators to get the ball rolling on these processes.
The process of negotiating this free trade agreement has not been without problems. I was concerned, for example, that I, my office and the general public learn more about the direction of negotiations for this free trade agreement from the UK government itself than we do from our own government. I want to thank the British High Commissioner, Vicki Treadell; and the former High Commissioner, Menna Rawlings, who were very open and active in their engagement and dialogue with me in this place.
I am concerned about the lack of transparency displayed by the Morrison government and also former Liberal governments on what impact this secretive approach has on the outcomes of this agreement, which we've only had a chance to look at since it's been signed in December. The government has not released any modelling or an impact statement in relation to the Australia-UK FTA, although I note that the national interest report was delivered today; nor has it consulted widely on its provisions before signing. The UK itself, new to free trade agreements, adopts a more open approach, seeking the views of the community, stakeholders and business to inform the negotiation process before they undertake it. We do the reverse.
I am concerned that, in this government's haste to secure a deal, it has negotiated away some of the protections that we in Labor believe are crucial for any international agreement to operate in Australia's national interest. There are a number of red flags that I will highlight. Firstly, this agreement includes procurement provisions which go well beyond current World Trade Organization obligations. There is a side letter proposing further dialogue between Australia and the UK regarding local government procurement options, which is sometime in the future. We are yet to know what that will entail.
Procurement is one of the most powerful levers Australian governments have to support Australian jobs and Australian businesses. This agreement obliges Australian governments to treat British companies as though they are Australian companies, with the financial thresholds contained in the WTO agreement on government procurement completely eroded. It will be open slather on government procurement into this country. It's unclear at this moment to what extent this might undermine state and territory governments' own local procurement arrangements. The Commonwealth's procurement budget was worth over $69 billion last year, yet, as I stated before, our trading relationship with the UK is worth $30 billion. We need to think about the disparity more substantially when we think about procurement.
I note Australia will maintain existing safeguards as outlined in the WTO agreement, including the ability to preference small and medium enterprises, protect national treasures and provide advancement and welfare for First Nations Australians. But will liberalising our procurement with the UK provide a net gain, and is this truly in Australia's national interest? It will be up to the government to assure Labor and the Australian public that they have done enough in this regard. These are questions they will continue to ask, as will of course the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I note that the treaties committee requires 20 joint sitting days to consider treaties. We have 3.5 of those days left in this parliament, so it will undoubtedly be a task for the 47th parliament.
This agreement includes the movement of people and mutual recognition of qualifications. It is in large part a migration agreement. Labor has expressed concerns about the unwarranted waiving of labour market testing in relation to international recruitment. This FTA not only waives labour market testing; it allows unlimited numbers of temporary workers to come in from the United Kingdom. I note that these provisions are not contained in the principal text of the agreement but inside letters that can be cancelled at any time by any party. It doesn't feel like much of a commitment. The prolific use of side letters in this agreement simply demonstrates the undue haste with which this FTA has been pursued by this government.
The agreement establishes a professional services working group to facilitate effective implementation and administration of systems for recognition of other professional qualifications. The Australian government must be clear as to exactly what other professions will be included. Labor will not support conditions that seek to water down Australian standards or undercut Australian wages. While Australia depends upon a robust international intellectual property system, Labor is concerned that seemingly innocuous IP provisions in this agreement could undermine the PBS and Medicare, particularly in relation to generic-brand pharmaceuticals, although I note the minister's comments in relation to this earlier. These concerns need to be addressed as a matter of urgency, and no doubt the treaties committee will look to that.
Finally, Australian wine exporters have been in contact with me quite furiously and regularly regarding the function and utility of this agreement, given the proposed amendments to the UK's alcohol duty system announced by the Johnson government in October. More than one-third of Australia's wine exports are sold to the UK, making it now Australia's No. 1 wine export market following the loss of our trade into China. In May 2021 the International Wine and Spirits Record estimated the value of Australian wine sold in the UK in the past year to be 2 billion pounds, the equivalent of A$3.8 billion. But exporters are concerned that the UK's proposed duty changes will create a system that is simply unworkable for them. That's because the proposed duties significantly favour some countries over others.
Currently, any alcoholic beverages, including wine, are taxed based on the concentration of alcohol by volume, which is known as the ABV. Under the new regime, wine and sparkling wine between 8.5 per cent ABV and 22 per cent ABV would be taxed at 25.88 pounds per litre of pure alcohol. Wine Australia claims this would result in a significant increase in the duties payable on still wine above 11.5 per cent ABV. We know that 97 per cent of still wine exported from Australia has an ABV of more than 11.5 per cent. In fact, the average alcohol concentration of Australian wines exported to the UK in the last year was 13.2 per cent.
Many Australian viticultural areas typically produce wine grapes that ripen at a higher sugar level than other countries, particularly those throughout Europe. More sun and less water mean fruit with a more intense flavour. It's great for producing our amazing Australian wines, but as a result Australian wines are on average higher in alcohol than the weaker, less sun unexposed wine products of Europe. On top of this, the alcohol content is widely influenced by the seasonal conditions. Under the proposed duty regime, the duty rate in one vintage year is likely to vary from the next, meaning a logistical nightmare for exporters in terms of tax rates and labelling requirements. If implemented, these duty changes would mean an estimated debilitating 11 per cent tax increase on Australian wine exports to the UK.
I'm sure these proposals—they're internal proposals of the UK government and of course we don't interfere in the work of other governments—of the UK Conservative government are not intended to be protectionist, but they will operate to significantly disadvantage Australian wine producers and will completely wipe out any gains that have been made for red wine producers in this UK-Australia free trade agreement. Red wine producers across this country that export to the UK or seek to export to the UK are quite rightly asking: what is the point of this free trade agreement for our industry?
Stakeholders have proposed various changes to the incoming regime, and I implore the minister and his government to consult with these crucial exporters to seek a solution to the problem that is coming their way. Given the hits Australian wine exporters have already faced with smoke taint from bushfires, tariffs and trade sanctions from China and increased shipping rates due to the global shipping crunch, they simply do not need this. They should not be left out in the cold. The Morrison government has often made a show of its bromance with Boris Johnson's government, and I call on the minister and I call on the Prime Minister to leverage this to ensure that our vital wine industry is supported and that the UK-Australia FTA is the best possible agreement for every business across this country.
Labor knows and understands that trade diversification is key to the future prosperity of this country, but we do need to diversify the products we sell and not just the markets we sell them to. The Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity recognised recently that Australia's relative economic complexity is in decline. We are now ranked No. 86 in the world, between Paraguay and Uzbekistan. This government doesn't seem to have any plan past the pomp and ceremony of signing up to agreements, but we need to do the hard work to ensure that these deals are good for Australian exporters and Australian jobs, and that they seek to ensure that we make more things here so that we have more things to export that are more complex, that cost more and that therefore increase our export earnings.
The Morrison government prove time and time again that they are all about the photo op and not about the follow-up. Labor is the party of free, fair and open trade. It was Labor that opened the doors to open trade with other nations. We welcome reducing tariffs on Australian goods and are comforted that the Australia-UK FTA does not include ISDS provisions. I doubt whether this would be the kind of agreement that Labor would have negotiated and concluded with our British counterparts were we in government. We look forward to this free trade agreement going forward for the consideration of the treaties committee, and I guess we will do something similar in the next parliament and again refer it to that committee as the inquiry will naturally expire when this parliament terminates.
Labor has an open view on this agreement. We'll study it carefully. We'll ask questions, as well we should. We will continue to work with the minister's office. I accept that the duties issue with the UK is a very complex and difficult problem, and I can only imagine the red wine producers of this country tearing their hair out at all the adversity they're facing. This feels like a nasty blow at the end of what was a hopeful road to the UK-Australia FTA. Again, I look forward to the Treaties Committee considering this deeply, and I thank the minister for his efforts.
MOTIONS
Council of the National Library of Australia
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) (17:00): by leave—I move:
That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960 , this House elect Mr Stevens to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia and to conti nue as a member for a period of three years from this day.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Trade and Investment Growth Joint Committee
Privileges and Members' Interests Committee
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ) (17:01): The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip nominating changes in the membership of certain committees.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) (17:01): by leave—I move:
(1) Mr Broadbent be discharged from the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests; and
(2) Mr Christensen be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth.
Question agreed to.
Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources Committee
Report
Mr CONAGHAN (Cowper) (17:02): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources, I present a corrigendum to the committee's report entitled The now frontier: developing Australia's space industry.
Human Rights Committee
Report
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (17:02): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Human rights scrutiny report: report 15 of 2021 and the inquiry report into the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills, incorporating dissenting reports. I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the reports.
Leave granted.
Dr WEBSTER: I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry report into the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills, which was tabled out of session last Friday, as well as the committee's 15th scrutiny report of 2021, which was tabled out of session in early December.
As members know, following a referral from the Attorney-General, the committee inquired into and reported on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and two related bills. These bills seek to remedy a significant gap in our discrimination laws to protect people of faith against discrimination. While we have federal antidiscrimination laws relating to sex, race, disability and age, there is no dedicated federal law to protect against discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or activity, despite our international human rights obligation to do so. International human rights law protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and this right is the essence of a free society. It includes the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief, and the freedom, either individually or in community with others, to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. Protecting the right to enjoy religious freedoms requires constant vigilance in a democratic, pluralist country like Australia. This is particularly relevant for minority religious groups, who are currently more likely to suffer from direct discrimination, but also for Christians, whose genuinely held religious views are increasingly being silenced.
In this inquiry the committee received 205 public submissions and one confidential submission and held three public hearings, receiving evidence from religious organisations, peak bodies, community groups, academics, legal experts and the Attorney-General's Department. The committee also conducted a survey, enabling members of the public to easily express their views on the issues of these bills. The committee received over 48,000 responses, with 82 per cent of respondents supporting the bills currently before parliament. I would like to thank all those individuals and groups that generously gave their time to assist the committee in this inquiry.
Almost all submitters and witnesses recognised the importance of protecting the right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of religious belief and activity. However, differences arose regarding how best to achieve these protections. The committee acknowledges these bills are contentious and considers there has been substantial confusion and misinformation about parts of the legislation. In particular, there has been confusion around statements of belief and how the legislation will apply in the context of schools and workplaces.
In relation to religious schools, the committee considers it is important that schools can act in accordance with their faith, including by upholding their ethos through employment and enrolment, as this is an essential element of the right to freedom of religion. Indeed, it is often said that religious values are more caught than taught.
In relation to statements of belief, it is important to note that freedom of expression is necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion. While the committee heard different perspectives as to the likely impact of this provision, the committee considers few, if any, of the examples of types of statements that would be protected by this bill would be protected in reality. The committee considers it is important that people are able to explain, discuss, share and express their moderate, genuine, faith based beliefs without fear of being silenced and that the bill contains significant safeguards. However, to alleviate some of the confusion surrounding the statement of belief clause, the committee has recommended the explanatory memorandum be amended to provide greater clarity about what sort of statements this bill would protect.
Of course, the right to freedom of religion must be balanced against other fundamental human rights to ensure all human rights are protected as far as possible. Drawing on a decade of experience in applying a human rights lens to proposed legislation, and assisted by submitters and witnesses to this inquiry, the committee is well placed to consider this important balancing act. Recognising the wide variety of views in relation to this topic, the committee considers it important to continue the conversation with the Australian people as to how to balance these rights and has urged future governments to monitor the impact of this legislation.
After carefully considering the evidence, the committee has concluded that, subject to the recommendations made by the committee, the religious discrimination legislation package remains essential to protect and uphold the fundamental right to freedom of religion and belief and should be passed.
Turning finally to the committee's 15th scrutiny report: in this report the committee considered 24 new bills and six legislative instruments, commented on three bills and concluded examination of one legislative instrument. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's reports. With these comments, I commend these reports to the chamber.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (17:09): by leave—I rise to make some comments as Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on the tabling of the committee's report on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills. I particularly thank the chair for her great work in herding those cats together. We don't always agree on every topic, but she always treats me with respect. I also thank the rest of the committee, who perhaps didn't plan to spend the last 71 days after parliament rose doing that, and the very hardworking secretariat. I know what you did last summer, and it wasn't much fun at all!
I will start by saying something about the timing and the time frame imposed on the committee to conduct this inquiry. The Attorney-General allowed this committee only 71 days—with Christmas and New Year in the middle—to conduct this inquiry and report to both houses of parliament. There are at least 12 religious celebrations during that period—Christmas, Hanukkah and others. Almost the entire 71 days fell during the school holidays; so, sorry to my boys. For many stakeholders the timing of the inquiry during religious celebrations and holidays posed great difficulties. Many organisations rely on volunteers to prepare submissions—a time-consuming and complex task. Many volunteers were writing submissions when they would have preferred to spend time with their families over the holidays. The Attorney-General's own department failed to get their submission in on time—the Attorney-General's own department. Yet the Attorney-General expected volunteers to spend their holidays writing submissions.
Despite being a secular nation, from 1901 to 2010 our House of Representatives has commenced the sitting day with a prayer. Since 2010 an acknowledgement of country has preceded the prayer on each sitting day, recognising two ancient traditions of wisdom. Of course, no parliamentarian is required to recite prayers or to be present in the chamber while this national prayer is read. The fact that Australia is a secular nation is acknowledged by section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution, but this longstanding tradition of prayer in the people's house reflects the duality of our secular nation with that religious vibe.
There is no doubt that the right to freedom of religion is recognised in international human rights law treaties that Australia is a signatory to. The freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief is absolute and cannot be limited or confined to protect other interests. As the Ruddock review noted, they cannot be departed from, even in times of national emergency. In contrast, the freedom to manifest religion or belief may be limited in specified circumstances.
Labor members of this committee understand the importance of this bill to protect people of faith against discrimination. We understand that there are real fears held by people of faith about not being able to practise their faith freely. We also understand that many of the concerns repeatedly raised about this legislation have not been addressed by the Morrison government. The committee heard evidence from many stakeholders about their concerns that some of the provisions in this legislative package will harm people, particularly people in the LGBTIQ community and people with disabilities, to name a few. To the trans community in particular, I say, 'I hear you.'
There are many unresolved issues with these bills. The majority report makes 12 recommendations to improve these bills. Labor members of the committee attached additional comments to the report. Please read these comments. The Morrison government should take note of all of the issues raised in the report and the additional comments before these bills are brought into this chamber.
I'd also just comment on the use of the committee process. The Attorney-General referred the bills to the committee late last year. As I've said, 71 days were allowed for the committee to inquire and report on the bills, with only three days of public hearings. I find it frustrating and quite astounding that there was a drafting error that was known about by the Attorney-General's Department that was not pointed out to the human rights committee. And the day before the committee report was due to be handed down, the Prime Minister publicly flagged that a significant amendment would be made to the bills before they were passed by this parliament, but our committee was not provided with that amendment.
I've been Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights since 2016. I take my role on this committee very seriously. I note that one of the previous chairs, who's on this committee, Mr Goodenough, has been a great contributor as well. This committee has scrutinised many difficult and complex pieces of legislation during that time. Reports from this committee are important. This is the only committee that examines all bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights, but what is the worth of a report that examines a bill the Prime Minister already knows he will significantly amend before it is passed? That is putting marketing before law, a press release before common sense. A cynical person may think that the committee has been used as a political device, rather than an important parliamentary tool to ensure that legislation passed by this parliament does not harm Australians.
Although the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights has not had the opportunity to consider the significant amendments the Prime Minister has flagged, I would encourage all parliamentarians to read the evidence set out in the majority report, as well as the additional comments from Labor members, and focus their minds on the serious issues that they raise. The Australian Labor Party has a long history of fighting to prevent discrimination against people, including people of faith. The antidiscrimination legislation that Prime Minister Morrison personally introduced should unite our nation, not divide it. Labor members urge the Morrison government to work with Labor and the state and territory governments to resolve the outstanding issues identified in the additional comments and in the majority report of this committee as a matter of urgency.
Law Enforcement Joint Committee
Report
Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (17:15): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I present the committee's report entitled Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Act 2019.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr SIMMONDS: by leave—Thank you to the opposition for the opportunity to speak to the report. This inquiry was undertaken at the request of the Attorney-General. The law enforcement committee has been examining the effectiveness of the AVM Act in reducing the exploitation of digital platforms by extremists and terrorists. The act was originally introduced, as members would know, as an immediate response to the live streaming of the Christchurch massacre. The committee has heard from law enforcement agencies that, since that event, the risk of harm to the community from AVM remains as prevalent as it did then and that the growth of AVM in online environments continues to challenge law enforcement and industry participants alike.
This threat environment necessitates a robust online safety framework, such as this one, to help prevent extremists and terrorists from using online platforms to advance their objectives and their hideous ideologies and to protect Australians from exposure to abhorrent violent material and extremist propaganda. The legislation provides an effective framework for ensuring that quick action is taken in relation to AVM, both by deterring misconduct by industry and by providing regulators and law enforcement with the appropriate tools in their efforts to respond to cases where extremists or terrorists have sought to exploit online platforms to promote violence.
The committee determined that the AVM legislation continues to play a vital role within Australia's broader online safety framework. The legislation has also encouraged the development of safer systems and helped foster valuable working relationships between the eSafety Commissioner, law enforcement and the tech industry. The committee concluded that the legislation strikes the right balance between granting flexibility to providers, who are making complex judgement calls, and the need to prevent the viral nature of abhorrent and violent material and facilitate the quick action of law enforcement in the subsequent disruption of crime.
The most prevalent feedback the committee received from industry related to their requests for more prescriptive definitions and time frames. I for one was not convinced by this argument. The tech industry's desire for prescription stemmed, in my view, not from a desire to see more AVM removed from their platforms or to protect Australians but from the tech industry's desire to facilitate easier decision-making on their part and to prevent them from having to be the arbiter of content, despite it being on their own platforms. This is another example, in my view, of how the tech industry and social media platforms are putting the safety of Australians second to their own interests, and it exemplifies the exact need for legislative intervention, like the AVM Act, by government.
As a committee, we were not convinced that amending the legislation would address the issues raised by the tech industry. Rather, an overly prescriptive approach to defining AVM in the legislation could have reduced the flexibility and utility of the current framework, which is doing a great job to keep Australians safe from this kind of material. However, the committee did identify that industry, in particular small platforms, would benefit from increased consultation and guidance from the government on the operation of the AVM Act. To this end, the committee has recommended that the government establish a forum for regular and ongoing consultation with the industry. This forum should focus on ways that industry can be more effective in enacting the AVM legislation and ensure industry has the guidance and support it needs to do so.
In recommending this report to the chamber, I would like to thank my fellow committee members, especially the deputy chair, for the quick consideration in undertaking this inquiry. Thank you to all the witnesses who appeared and those who provided submissions. Thank you also to Sean and the secretariat for their hard work in preparing the report draft.
Northern Australia Joint Committee
Report
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (17:21): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled The engagement of traditional owners in the economic development of northern Australia.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr ENTSCH: by leave—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, I wish to make a few remarks on the committee's report on the engagement of traditional owners in the economic development of northern Australia, which has just been presented. This report has shown that traditional owner communities across northern Australia are striving to participate in the development of the region. They are working for the advancement of their own communities and for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Various forms of Indigenous land tenure provide traditional owners with a range of rights to custodianship. Use of their land is the greatest asset for Indigenous peoples in the north, but the struggle they face is to leverage these rights for economic and social progress. Title to land is by itself not enough. Many Indigenous Australians think that these rights leave them land rich but dirt poor. The bodies representing traditional owners in the land rights and native title systems have a very large burden of responsibility and expectations placed upon them. These bodies have statutory functions to perform, in addition to their roles in advocacy, governance, negotiation and business management.
Despite these critical roles, the financial and capacity building assistance provided by governments is insufficient and creates uncertainty. The committee supports increased financial support as well as secure, long-term funding that is not dependent on annual budget allocations. As a mechanism to provide funding certainty, the committee supports the idea of the establishment of a future fund. It is time that governments acknowledge that native title and land rights bodies are permanent institutions with structural roles in legal and land administration systems.
When looking to future opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the economy of northern Australia, the committee took particular interest in openings in emerging sectors of the economy. There is growing potential in areas such as cultural enterprises and tourism as well as in environmental protection initiatives such as savanna burning, land management, carbon abatement and renewable energy. Opportunities like these have the special strengths of using traditional knowledge of country. They also support efforts to stay connected with country and to fulfil traditional obligations of custodianship. The committee strongly supports the expansion of the Indigenous ranger programs.
Finally, the committee is united in its commitment to the fundamental importance of the principles of free, prior, informed consent, as endorsed by Australia in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. These principles must inform all legislative and other arrangements affecting the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
I would like to conclude with some words of thanks. The committee is grateful to the Indigenous and non-Indigenous organisations and individuals who made submissions to the inquiry and those who appeared in public hearings. Their contributions were vital to the committee's efforts to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the issues facing traditional owners in northern Australia. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the committee for their involvement in the inquiry and their very constructive contributions to the report and its recommendations. Finally, I'd like to express my appreciation for the hard work of the secretariat in supporting the committee and bringing this inquiry to completion.
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (17:25): by leave—I will keep my contribution short so that we can hear from the very eminent member for Lingiari in one of his final statements in the House. There would be no better topic to hear from him on than this one. Let me begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the lands on which we table this report, the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples. This always was and always will be Aboriginal land. As we gather here, we should always be mindful that we are standing on the shoulders of 1,600 generations of First Nations peoples, and that is our shared history.
I rise to commend the recommendations of this report. I would like to thank the secretariat for all of their hard work bringing it together in time, along with our chair. These recommendations are an important building block towards meeting the 17 national socioeconomic targets detailed in the national Closing the Gap agreement. Economic growth has been central to political debate about our nation's prosperity, but, to date, Indigenous Australians have largely been excluded from these discussions.
In evidence given to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia, it was abundantly clear that Indigenous Australians support the economic development of northern Australia. Traditional owners are trying to build a better economic future on the lands where they hold native title and land rights. However, traditional owners and their representative bodies are often confronted with an overwhelming workload and limited financial and institutional resources. To facilitate economic and social development opportunities, traditional owners and their representative bodies must consult with their communities and negotiate with corporations, all while meeting a patchwork of statutory obligations created by native title and land rights.
Our report found that there is an urgent need to rethink funding arrangements for representative bodies, to broaden the support they receive. By the destruction of Juukan Gorge, we saw the power balance between traditional owners and developers can only be redressed with human and financial resources and institutional capacity. Traditional owners cannot give free, prior and informed consent that is unfettered by coercion when negotiating land use agreements without access to resources and institutional capacity. The Australian government must increase funding for prescribed body corporates and other Indigenous and Torres Strait Islander bodies with a role in the native title and land rights system. In addition, the federal government must establish an independent fund to administer funding for prescribed body corporates, as recommended in the final report on the destruction of the Indigenous heritage sites at Juukan Gorge, A way forward.
I would like to finish by expressing my deepest condolences on the passing of Uncle Lewis, a founder and board member of Koobara in my electorate of Lilley. Uncle Lewis was a strong leader who had the interests of his community at the front and centre of everything he did. I pass on my sympathy to the entire Koobara community—the wonderful people that you are—and to Aunty Melita, William, Lewis and Susie. I thank the House.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (17:28): by leave—I thank Mr Entsch, as he walks out the door. While he's still here, I want to acknowledge—I want to talk about you, so get in!—that this will be the last occasion that I'll get to speak to a committee report by this committee as a member of parliament. Firstly, I want to acknowledge how well the committee has worked over a number of years and the cooperation from the chair to us. I really do commend the chair for making sure that all views were included and for working collaboratively to get an agreed outcome on our inquiries.
Both the member for Leichhardt and the member for Lilley have outlined some of the important aspects of the recommendations in this report, but I think it needs to be seen as a piece of work which will be ongoing. It's not something of which we can say, 'We've done the job; we've made these recommendations.' It will require us to make sure that governments and this parliament are held to account for ensuring that the recommendations in this report are, as far as possible, carried out.
Most importantly, that will mean carrying on the work of this committee in inquiring into Juukan Gorge, and some of the recommendations in this report flow directly from that inquiry. In particular, recommendation 9 of this report flows, in a way, from the Juukan Gorge report, which made a number of recommendations, including something which I think is well overdue now, and that is a review of the Native Title Act to ensure that we're properly funding prescribed bodies corporate and representative bodies so that they can properly represent the interests of traditional owners and native title holders.
I think there also needs to be a bit of education going on so that people understand the difference between native title, as it exists across the country in its various forms, and land rights, as they exist, in this case, in the Northern Territory, where there's an inalienable freehold title which can't be bought or sold and which gives Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory very powerful rights of withholding consent for development on their land. I think we need to be paying particular attention to this point, and the Member for Leichhardt referred to it: the importance of acknowledging, and doing something about, and ensuring that legislation in this parliament recognises, the principle of free, prior and informed consent, as set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We should be incorporating that in the laws of this country, as they have done in Canada, to make sure that any work which is being done on Aboriginal land or Torres Strait Islander country requires the free, prior and informed consent of the native title holders or traditional owners or those who speak for that country, before any development takes place. That is fundamentally important, in my view, as is the recognition of the fact of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and all that it entails, because I don't think that we, as a nation, have yet understood our obligations in being signatories to that declaration.
I will conclude by saying: the recommendations are all worthy. They are the result of quite a detailed discussion with Aboriginal groups, industry groups and Torres Strait Islander groups from across the country over a number of months. We started this inquiry before we started the Juukan Gorge inquiry. This inquiry was, in part, suspended to allow us to do the Juukan Gorge inquiry, and we again took up this inquiry post the Juukan Gorge report being tabled.
Again, I want to thank the members of the committee and the secretariat. I say again to the member for Leichhardt that we've enjoyed the opportunity to work with him in his capacity as chair of this committee, and I certainly see it as very important that we acknowledge his work. And I might say—she's gone, but I was going to say that the member for Lilley is a breath of fresh air and I'm very pleased she came onto our committee.
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (17:34): I move:
That the House take note of the report.
In doing so, I'll just say thank you very much to the member for Lingiari, who's been a fabulous deputy chair for a long time and a major contributor to some great work. I thank you very much indeed for your service.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Zimmerman ): Order. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Reference to Federation Chamber
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (17:34): I move:
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Question agreed to.
Treaties Joint Committee
Report
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (17:34): On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Report 199:agreement for the exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information.
Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).
Mr SHARMA: by leave—This report details the committee's findings from its inquiry into the agreement between the governments of Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom regarding the exchange of naval nuclear propulsion information, or the ENNPIA. The ENNPIA relates to the proposed acquisition by Australia of nuclear powered submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. This is the first initiative of the AUKUS enhanced trilateral security partnership. With our security environment growing more challenging in the decades ahead, a regionally superior submarine capability is critical to safeguard Australia's security, and this is what this agreement will facilitate. We are finding in the waters to our north, and indeed to our west and east as well, a more contested maritime environment. The supremacy and/or the margin of supremacy, if you like, of the United States Navy is no longer what it was at the end of the Second World War, and we have rising naval powers, not the least of which is China, putting a significant amount of new tonnage and new capability into our oceans every year. It's important in this environment that Australia steps up its own efforts to safeguard our security.
The AUKUS partnership is a significant strategic development for Australia, as is the decision for Australia to seek an optimal pathway for the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines. What this agreement does is facilitate the first step in that. It allows for the United States and the United Kingdom to exchange sensitive and otherwise highly classified naval nuclear propulsion information with a third country for the first time, and it provides a mechanism for Australian personnel to access training and education from our UK and United States counterparts, which is essential for learning how to safely operate and support nuclear powered submarines.
The committee heard a range of views in the course of its inquiry into this agreement. It is important, however, to note that this is only the first step towards the potential acquisition of nuclear propulsion technology, and an 18-month consultation process, as foreshadowed by the defence minister, is already underway. The committee welcomed assurances provided by witnesses from the Australian government that the proposed agreement is intended to facilitate the sharing of naval nuclear propulsion information only—nothing to do with nuclear weapons—and that a subsequent agreement would be required to support transfers of equipment, materiel or technology. Any such agreement would of course be subject to Australia's domestic treaty-making requirements, including further consideration by this committee.
Given the early stage of the project, much concern about the proposed agreement expressed during the inquiry, whilst understandable and legitimate, was to some degree speculative or pre-emptive. It is the case that significant matters remain to be determined during the 18-month consultation process, and any further action will be subject to subsequent committee scrutiny. The committee notes the concerns expressed by some who made submissions about Australia's commitment to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, but found no evidence to suggest that Australia's steadfast commitment to our nonproliferation obligations was wavering. The committee is of the view that the proposed agreement is in the national interest and accordingly recommends binding treaty action be taken.
BILLS
Religious Discrimination Bill 2021
Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021
Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021
Second Reading
Cognate debate.
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
to which the following amendment was moved:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and notes that:
(1) this bill will have a greater negative impact on Tasmania than any other state or territory because our anti-discrimination legislation is currently the best in the country; and
(2) the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 has the full support of the Tasmanian Parliament and been strongly endorsed by the Liberal Premier the Hon Peter Gutwein MP".
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (17:39): Consumers make an informed choice to select a service provider such as a school, an aged-care facility or a hospital identified as being associated with that religion because they have an expectation that the service will be provided according to the ethos of that religion. The legislation contains safeguards to ensure that statements of belief made in good faith are protected only to the extent that they are not malicious, vilifying or inciteful. Provided that a statement of belief is not intended to harass or intimidate, the individual making it must be protected from discrimination.
In our society, with free speech comes civic responsibilities. Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. Many religious texts are thousands of years old and contain idioms and metaphors, the meaning of which have changed over time. Their literal meanings must be interpreted with care and caution. Common sense and the reasonableness test must always apply in the interpretation of legislation. Making an honest statement of belief in a social environment during the course of one's daily activities must be protected. Individuals must not face sanctions such as the loss of employment, loss of licence or loss of professional registration for expressing their religious beliefs in good faith.
As a Christian, I seek your indulgence in making reference to a very important statement of belief to me, the Nicene Creed, which dates back to 381 AD. This forms the defining statement of belief of mainstream Christianity, which is almost universally adhered to by most Christian denominations. This legislation will protect in law Christians expressing their belief, as they have done for the past 2,000 years. Millions of Christians around the world recite the Creed in church services each week as their legitimate statement of belief. Permit me to read a version from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by
the holy Ghost, Born of the virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius
Pilate, Was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell, The
third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into Heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From
thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in
the holy Ghost, The holy Catholick Churche, The Communion of
Saints, The forgiveness of sins, The resurrection of the body, And
the life everlasting. Amen.
This creed forms the fundamental basis of the Christian faith. There is nothing extreme about it, and Christians ought to have the freedom to be able to express these beliefs free from discrimination in their homes, workplaces and community. This legislation enshrines this freedom in law. There is nothing objectionable in this statement of belief, made in good faith. Not everyone may agree with it, but this bill will defend the rights of Christians to express their beliefs free from discrimination, detriment or harassment from non-believers.
This legislation was drafted after extensive consultation with key stakeholders and faith leaders by the Attorney-General, who dedicated herself to working with all parties in a spirit of cooperation to maintain the integrity of the legislation. Our government ought to protect the right of Australians to worship freely according to their faith, beliefs, values and conscience. The exception is in the instances where hate, violence or illegal acts against others are incited. Simply disagreeing with the religious views of another person or group of persons should not be grounds for discrimination against them in the workplace or in broader society.
In summary, although we live in a tolerant society, there are many instances of religious discrimination in Australia, which this legislation aims to address. It is the intent of this bill to provide legal protections for people based on their religion in line with the existing legislation in place, which protects individuals based on other attributes such as their age, sex, race or disability. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (17:44): In 1964 a man called Michael delivered a sermon in Ivanhoe Methodist Church. He was a young, bookish bloke, a runner, who had just returned from Borneo. In the congregation was a woman who was training to be a teacher, Barbara. She had just returned from Papua New Guinea, and so they got chatting. He offered to drive her home. She lived almost within sight of the church and said, 'Yes, a lift home would be lovely.' And so my parents fell in love. I literally wouldn't be standing here today were it not for the Ivanhoe Methodist Church. One of my great role models is my grandfather Keith Leigh, a Methodist minister who tragically died in 1970, doing a fundraising run up Mount Wellington in Hobart to raise money for overseas aid.
And one of the things I've loved since becoming a federal member of parliament is engaging with the many faith communities here in the ACT. We've got the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture—the other ACCC, you might say. There's the Sikh temple and Sikh groups who, through Turbans 4 Australia, distributed meals to people under lockdown. It was one of the great examples of the Sikh community's willingness to give back to the community. The HTCC, the Hindu Temple and Cultural Centre, in Florey, has a great following in the local community. Gungahlin Mosque has many parishioners and regularly serves food and welcomes people in. Through its open day, it welcomes Muslims and non-Muslims alike to the mosque. Kippax Uniting Church distribute a huge number of hampers every year, to the extent that I once quipped with them that they're really a large social service organisation with a small faith community attached to the side. The Baha'i community, the Buddhist community, the Canberra Quakers, the Anglicans, the Catholics, the Pentecostals and the evangelicals all help to form a rich tapestry of the Canberra community. They strengthen community through their volunteering and their donations.
As we know, those who attend religious services are more likely to donate money, including to non-religious causes, and more likely to volunteer, including to non-religious outfits. Those who attend religious services are more likely to give blood. And yet we've seen significant attacks on people of faith over recent years—the Christchurch mosque attack, Islamophobia and Hinduphobia. I spoke during the last parliamentary sittings about the rise in anti-Semitism and its links with the antivaccination movement.
The challenge with the Religious Discrimination Bill is to ensure that, in preventing discrimination based on religion, we don't thereby allow additional discrimination. I've appreciated those who've attended the roundtables that I've hosted and co-hosted with the member for Canberra, Alicia Payne, including members of the ACT Jewish Community, the Australian Baha'i Community, the Islamic Society of the ACT, Canberra City Care, the Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn, Crossroads Christian Church, a chaplain of the Australian Defence Force, Gungahlin Anglican Church, Holy Cross Anglican Church, Canberra Interfaith Forum, the Australian Partnership of Religious Organisations, Equality Australia, Diversity ACT Community Services, A Gender Agenda, and AIDS Action.
As the shadow Attorney-General has pointed out, it is already unlawful under the antidiscrimination laws in most states and territories for individuals to be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs or practices. Labor's principles as we approach this bill are threefold. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes clear, religious organisations and people of faith should have the right to act in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs and teachings of their traditions and faith. We support the extension of the Commonwealth's antidiscrimination framework to ensure Australians aren't discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or activities, and we want to ensure that, consistent with the international covenant, any extension of the Commonwealth's antidiscrimination framework doesn't remove protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination.
But this bill has come awfully late in the parliamentary term. The Prime Minister promised in December 2018 that a religious discrimination bill would be passed before the 2019 election. He broke that promise. He didn't even introduce it in 2020 or early 2021. He waited until the end of 2021, until the very end of the parliamentary sitting year, as we are heading now rapidly to an election, to introduce this bill. That has meant that, over the 71 days between the introduction of the bill and the bringing down of their committee reports, parliamentary committees have had to work furiously with stakeholders. That 71-day period included 12 religious holidays, and for most people was a period of school holidays. I acknowledge the hard work that the members for Moreton and Macnamara and Senators Ciccone, O'Neill and Pratt, who have worked through this period in order to scrutinise this bill.
The challenge that has been noted by many submitters is that, by overriding state and territory antidiscrimination law, there is a concern that people who are bringing antidiscrimination cases might not be able to do it or would face a more complicated or expensive process. Labor senators have noted that there isn't an antivilification provision in the Religious Discrimination Bill, despite the fact that, as I mentioned, religious discrimination is on the rise.
A number of concerns have been raised in relation to clause 12, including the concern that it elevates religious speech above other human rights while undermining existing protections that may override existing federal, state and territory antidiscrimination laws; concerns the provision may be unconstitutional; concerns that it provides the minister with the power to prescribe other laws to be overridden; and concerns that discrimination complaints relating, in whole or part, to a statement of belief under state antidiscrimination laws will face a much more complicated and expensive process as a result of this provision.
The Prime Minister, three years ago, promised that he would change the law to protect kids. There is widespread support for this in the parliament, and it is beyond me why the Prime Minister has not done that, has not made the change.
This is an issue which has been raised with me by a number of constituents. Mary Davis of Palmerston wrote to me: 'My daughter was incorrectly identified as being male at birth. She was educated at a wonderful co-educational Christian school in Canberra. After years of feeling that her assigned gender was at odds with her real gender, with the mental and psychological struggles that came with that, she eventually came out as female in year 12. Her school embraced her for who she was and celebrated with her who she would become. She readily tells people that her school kept her alive during the difficult years of her adolescence through their caring and acceptance.' But Ms Davis goes on to say, 'I know of many other transgender children who have not been as lucky as my daughter in their school lives.' She is concerned that those children may be subject to discrimination.
Kathy, another constituent, who has asked me not to use her surname, has written to me about her then 12-year-old daughter who told her father and Kathy that she 'doesn't think she's a girl', and that she was questioning whether she was trans or gender nonbinary. Kathy writes: 'This didn't come entirely as a shock. We discussed her feelings as a family. My daughter told us that she was still happy for us to call her "she" and that she was comfortable in her skin, which we were very relieved about. She now wears boys clothing and she doesn't talk about her thinking. When we check in with her, she's still fine and still feeling the same way. She's one of the most caring, deep-thinking, intelligent and compassionate children I've met. It's a pleasure to be her parent and it's a joy to have her in our family.' Kathy says that her daughter attends a Catholic school and that she's confided her thoughts and feelings to her friends at school, and they're totally accepting of her. But, again, as with Mary Davis, Kathy is concerned that children in other schools may face discrimination and that children who are not as comfortable in their identities may be subject to a backlash. She is concerned that this bill might make discrimination worse.
A powerful article posted online by Rachel Cunneen goes on to talk about Nick, Rachel's transgender child, who faced significant challenges in transition and received support from the principal of the school. But, as Rachel Cunneen writes, 'I became aware of parents and teachers who could no longer meet my gaze.' It is concerns of that kind that make it important that we support transgender children who are making that journey and that we don't worsen discrimination in this process.
It is a strong Labor legacy to enact antidiscrimination laws. We look back proudly at the work of the Racial Discrimination Act under the Whitlam government and the Sex Discrimination Act under the Hawke government. There were those on the other side of the House who voted against the Sex Discrimination Act at the time. Labor were unified in our support for those reforms, and we are supportive of further measures to reduce discrimination. But it is our concern that this bill not worsen discrimination and that it not put vulnerable Australians in a position in which they might be subject to expulsion, to being vilified and to feeling that their mental health issues are being worsened.
We know that the prevalence of mental health problems is significantly higher among LGBT+ members of our community. We know that the journeys that a child faces coming out or struggling with a different gender identity are difficult journeys. They are difficult conversations. We want to make sure that those children receive the love and support that they deserve from their entire community.
In closing, I thank the many people of faith and the people not of faith who have taken the opportunity to speak to me about this bill. It is important that we as a parliament make a decision on this bill that we can look back on in years to come and feel that we expanded on the work of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act. But there is a greater tension at play in this bill than there was with those bills. It is absolutely vital, particularly as the parliament looks at the clauses surrounding a statement of belief, that a compromise is crafted which reduces discrimination in Australia and does not increase it.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (17:58): Over the past few years, I've consulted extensively with organisations, schools and individuals from a variety of backgrounds on the potential impact of this bill. I've truly sought to understand all sides and believe that I have a thorough grasp on what the outcome of this legislation might mean for the northern Tasmanian community that I represent. It's on that basis that I find that I cannot support this bill. While I acknowledge that there was a commitment to deliver a religious discrimination bill, this bill, in my view, goes far beyond that orthodox antidiscrimination bill.
It's important at the outset to realise and to stress that there absolutely should be freedom from discrimination for all people, including people of faith, and that there are many wonderful faith based schools in my region. I have met the warmest, most inclusive teachers and staff from these schools, who I know wouldn't dream of excluding, bullying or intimidating a member of their community based on their sexuality or disability. However, the simple fact is that this bill would allow for discrimination to happen. And while I support the desire to employ religious school leaders or teachers who share a school's religious ethos, I don't think that anybody would want to do so if it might cause harm to others.
One question I've constantly asked myself through this process is: what is the problem that we're trying to solve? If the answer to that is that we don't want to see discrimination against people of faith, which I think we all recognise we don't, then that's simple enough and we have to find a way to do so that isn't privileging those rights above others.
I'm deeply concerned about the potential far-reaching and unintended consequences of this bill. Through the incident that unfolded last week at Citipointe Christian College, I believe that we've already begun to see the potential impact of this legislation, which is a slippery slope to setting our society back decades. Nobody should be discriminated against because of their religion, but this bill goes further and beyond protecting somebody's faith.
I stand with the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, who doesn't want to see Tasmania's gold standard antidiscrimination laws eroded. This will have a bigger impact on our state than on any other. Anyone around my age who grew up in our state would remember a time when homosexuality was a crime and would remember that the laws that followed to protect Tasmanians were incredibly hard fought for. For 24 years Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act has prevented discrimination—and provided protections, including protecting employees in all sectors; and teachers, staff and students—on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability or race. Our laws are considered first-rate; and Queensland, the ACT and Victoria followed suit. However, ours still remain the strongest in Australia.
The Tasmanian community statement issued yesterday was signed by the Liberal Deputy Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff; Tasmanian Labor Justice spokesperson, Ella Haddad; University of Tasmania vice-chancellor, Rufus Black; disability advocates; and more than 20 organisations. It highlights the significant challenges this legislation presents. As outlined in the statement, currently in our state, teachers in faith based schools are protected from being sacked for being gay or in a de facto relationship. Nurses who are unmarried can work in faith based hospitals. Our workplaces, schools and hospitals are safer and more inclusive. Our current antidiscrimination act sends the message that abuse and mistreatment are unacceptable, no matter who you are, who you love, where you work or what faith you have.
This bill takes away these discrimination protections, which have been in place for almost a quarter of a century, explicitly overriding our state's incredibly robust laws. I would not be doing my job as a representative for the people of Tasmania—and specifically the northern electorate of Bass—if I were to support this override. I'm not prepared to stand by and see our state laws eroded to privilege one group over another. It's not okay to be cruel, offensive or humiliating just because you can say it with conviction or point to a religious text to back it up. This is a view supported by many Tasmanian politicians, on all sides, as well as unions, business groups, community organisations, and countless Tasmanians.
I know and recognise that my actions will upset some in the religious communities which I represent, but I also take heart from the conversations I have had and the correspondence I have received from pastors, religious sisters and those who considered themselves to be of faith, who do not want to see this bill passed due to the hurt and pain it may cause to others. Over the weekend the Tasmanian chamber of commerce and Unions Tasmania joined forces to voice their opposition to this bill. As they said in their opening statement, 'When business and unions stand together you know it's time to take notice.' They pointed out many of the flaws of this bill, which will have devastating consequences if enacted. Scenarios they cited included a manager telling a female co-worker that her divorce was a sin and that women should submit to their husbands, or a worker with disability who could be urged by co-workers to seek faith healing because their disability is a result of sin.
As Mary Henley-Collopy, expert consultant on living with disability for the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, has said, 'I wish I was exaggerating when I tell you that for every one of my 60 years of life I've been regularly approached by people, mostly on their first meeting of me, who have made comments such as, "If you come to our church you could be healed." These offensive, hurtful and degrading statements imply I am not whole and that I need to be repaired to fit the norm. I work very hard not to absorb these comments and to remain content with who I am, but it's tiring to have to do so, and some days I feel quite hurt by such comments. I'm completely gobsmacked that the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill is even being considered. I find it incomprehensible that this proposed bill will override all antidiscrimination legislation in place. You may scoff and think that you wouldn't say such things or know anyone who would, but the reality of this legislation is that it gives permission for it to happen.'
Just weeks after anointing the wonderful Dylan Alcott as Australian of the Year, what message are we sending by giving licence to those who seek to degrade or belittle, whether intentional or not? While in Tasmania, currently, these situations can be resolved with mediation through the antidiscrimination commission, the Religious Discrimination Bill could cut this avenue off and protect the perpetrator, as noted by TCCI and the unions.
Then, of course, there is the override of Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act as it relates to employment in faith based schools and services. Currently in Tasmania, staff can't be sacked or denied a promotion based on a number of attributes, including sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. In my many conversations about this bill, I've spoken with an incredible number of teachers and staff who are distressed about what may happen to them if it should be enacted. From unmarried heterosexual teachers who may have had a child to straight divorced teachers and those who identify as LGBTIQ, all hold grave concerns about their professional future and have constant anxiety about missing out on a well-earned promotion or, worse, losing the job that they love.
This was a genuine concern expressed by one teacher I spoke to, who shared their story anonymously in a local paper this weekend. I'd like to read an excerpt of their story:
No matter how good we are as teachers there will be a sword hanging over our heads.
It will be a return to the dark old days when we could be shown the door just because of who we love.
I am a teacher in a Tasmanian Catholic school, I'm gay, I'm married to my wonderful partner and the teachings of Christianity play an important part in my life.
I love teaching, I get along well with other staff and with students.
I am out at work, as are several of my colleagues.
Over the many years I have worked in the Catholic school system I have seen the positive impact Tasmania's top-notch laws against discrimination.
They mean staff like me no longer have to pretend we are something we are not, hide our relationships, find excuses not to bring partners to work events, or watch on in silence as another staff member slag off LGBTI people.
Our anti-discrimination laws also mean LGBTI students are able to disclose who they are, seek the support they need and confidently stand up for themselves when they are attacked.
Faith-based schools are far from perfect when it comes to inclusion and respect, but in Tasmania they have come a long way since the bad old days when prejudice ran amok in the staff room and school yard.
… … …
Jesus said "do unto others", not "treat others badly in my name", and the Anti-Discrimination Act embodies His command.
In contrast, the Religious Discrimination Bill seeks to take us back to the Old Testament stories of exclusion, division and enmity between people.
I am advanced in my teaching career. I could probably get a job elsewhere if I was pushed out.
My concern is for young LGBTI and unmarried teachers for whom it would be a terrible blow to be turned away or sacked.
I'm concerned for parents who will be left wondering if they want their child taught by schools that discriminate, and by staff selected because they're pious, not competent.
I'm particularly concerned about students in faith-based schools.
I have seen with my own eyes how they flourish when they are given support, and how they have to withdraw and hide when faced with unchecked prejudice.
When young people feel they do not belong, and are unable to live and flourish as their authentic selves, the results can be catastrophic, as the suicide rates among young LGBTI people show.
This teacher highlights another serious concern of mine, which is centred around the rights of all children. Whilst I'm very pleased to see that there would be an amendment to protect gay students, I'm horrified to see that it does not extend to children who identify as transgender. More than horrified, I'm utterly distressed by this exclusion, so I can't begin to think how the children themselves or their parents feel. What message are we sending? After so much progress over the past few years, how did we get back to a place where those of us who hold such privilege in this House can ignore the harm that we might place on children by telling them that they are other and less than in this country and do not deserve the rights and protections afforded to others? I can't wrap my head around this, and I fear that it may risk lives.
I implore everyone here to think about the long-term consequences that this will have. Can anyone really tell me that they're emotionally, mentally or physically distressed to the point of self-harm because there's a trans student in their class, in their church or in their workplace? I find it incredibly hard to believe that this would be the case. However, for a trans child the impact of this legislation that leaves them open to bullying, exclusion, sacking or expulsion could well lead to higher rates of self-harm and poor mental health. Why on earth would we want to inflict that upon anyone?
It's 2022, and I can't believe we're even having this conversation. As an elected representative, my job is to come here and vote on legislation that I believe will best serve my community. This bill is an overreach, and I cannot use the role that I have here to endorse a bill that erodes the rights of so many in my community—rights that they already enjoy, and the loss of which may cause them harm. If the government wants to come back with a bill that protects people from religious discrimination without these other consequences, then I would be supportive of that bill. But in its current form I cannot support this bill.
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (18:10): I support the core principles of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, but I have deep reservations about a couple of sections of the bill that I will go to. I do support the core principle of the extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework to ensure that Australians are not discriminated against because of their religious beliefs and activities, just as the Commonwealth law currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, disability, race, sex, gender identity, sexual characterisations and sexual orientation. This approach is consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory, which makes it clear that religious organisations and people of faith have the right to act in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs and teachings of their traditions and faith. However, also consistent with the international covenant is the principle that any reform in this area must ensure that an extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework does not remove protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination, and that is where many Australians have very valid concerns regarding the operation of this bill. I believe that those concerns are valid and I share those concerns. I also believe that those concerns should be dealt with by the government if this bill is to pass this parliament.
The two particular concerns relate to clauses 11 and 12 of the bill. Clause 11 grants preference for religious organisations in some of their policies. But there's a particular issue in doing that with transgender children, and that's an issue that I believe needs to be fixed. There's also an issue with clause 12. Clause 12 of the bill relates to statements of belief. Under this clause, a statement of belief does not constitute discrimination if it is not malicious, it's not threatening or intimidatory, it doesn't harass or vilify and it's a statement made in accordance with someone's religious views and with the teachings and tenets of that religion. Many Australians have expressed their opposition to this clause and their concern regarding this clause, both to the committee and to my office through emails. I appreciate their concern and I thank those who have contacted me on both sides of the argument with respect to this issue. I share some of those concerns.
The first issue that I have with statements of belief is that I don't understand—and it's been very difficult for anyone to explain—what statements people wish to make that they cannot already make or wish to say at the moment. What are the statements that this bill will allow people to make that cannot be made at the moment? Many people have been unable to answer that question. Indeed, I believe that the government has been unable to answer that question. The human rights committee went to this issue in quite some detail and actually made a recommendation in their report that the government had to deal with this issue. The recommendation is at 6.135, recommendation 9 of the report, and it says:
The committee recommends that the government consider providing further explanation and examples with respect to clause 12 in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, to provide greater clarity about what sort of statements or actions may, or may not, be considered to not constitute discrimination.
That was the view of the committee. The committee is telling the government that they need to provide clarity about what statements of belief people will be able to make that they can't already make at the moment.
The Kingsford Legal Centre, a very well respected community legal centre in my electorate, has also expressed concern about the operation of this clause, and their director, Emma Golledge, wrote to me last year, outlining their views on what this section of the bill will allow some people to say. In their view, it will allow people to say things like this: to women in the workplace, that they should be at home caring for children; to an LGBTIQ staff member, that they are going to hell; or to a person with a disability or health condition, that they need religious intervention to cure them. Now, if that is the case then I believe that there is a problem with this bill. As someone who has a very close relative who is gay, I can't see why we should be amending the Australian laws to allow protection for people to make statements such as that, and, indeed, for that clause to be able to be used to encourage those types of statements.
The second issue I have with clause 12 is that the operation of it will grant special rights under Australian law to one group of Australians, ahead of other Australians who may not hold those religious views. So the operation of this particular clause offends a deeply important principle of Australian law, and that is that all Australians are equal before the Australian law—all Australians are equal. It's actually the antithesis of many religious doctrines—most notably, that of equity and equality before God, and, indeed, before the law. So that is an issue with respect to clause 12.
The third element is that clause 12 overrides existing antidiscrimination laws. It will override 12 federal, state and territory laws. It will be the only such law to do so. This was again an issue that was identified by many submitters to the human rights committee inquiry. At 6.20 of their report, they identified that the Law Council of Australia had noted:
Clause 12 is highly unusual in that it seeks to override existing antidiscrimination laws at the Commonwealth, State and Territory level. This does not appear in other Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws which are generally intended to operate concurrently with State and Territory laws. Clause 12 stands alone in this respect.
So there's an issue with the operation of this law and it overriding state and territory antidiscrimination laws.
The fourth element of concern with respect to this particular clause, clause 12, is that, in recent times, governments have passed antidiscrimination laws to create inclusive and respectful workplaces. It has been about changing the culture in workplaces to remove discrimination—particularly against women, LGBTIQ members of the community and people with disabilities. And employers, unions and workers have used those laws as a basis for creating codes of conduct and policies that create and maintain respectful and inclusive workplaces. And it has worked. It has worked to change the culture, for good, in workplaces throughout the country and to change the behaviour of individuals around discriminatory activity.
Just today, the first item of business for this year in this parliament was for this parliament to accept the Jenkins report into workplace behaviour in this parliament, and for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties to apologise for the appalling conduct that some employees and others have experienced in this workplace. We pledged to do more to make sure that this workplace is much more inclusive and respectful.
But many Australians who submitted to this inquiry believe and share the view that allowing statements of belief that are exempt from the provisions of federal, state and territory antidiscrimination laws will at the very least make it unclear whether certain statements, particularly relating to the role of women in society and LGBTIQ people, would amount to a breach of a workplace code, a policy or an EBA, and therefore undermine the ideal of creating safe and inclusive workspaces. And it may make it unlawful for a person to take an action under the Fair Work Act if they feel that they have been aggrieved under those workplace laws or under those workplace codes and EBAs because of the operation of this law which overrides those state and territory laws and displaces them. If you look at it in that respect, if this law is passed and that particular clause gets up we are going to head in the wrong direction about workplace culture and creating respectful and inclusive workplaces.
The fifth point around this clause is that it creates a convoluted system of antidiscrimination law. Discrimination complaints are overwhelmingly handled by state and territory tribunals. They are done on a no-cost basis to provide easy access to justice for Australians. Typically those tribunals use a process of conciliation at an initial stage to try and sort the issues out, and most of them do. But if this particular provision gets up, if a defendant raises a defence under clause 12 of the Religious Discrimination Act, making a statement of belief, which will provide and afford that protection, then that is a defence under federal law, and those state and territory tribunals cannot exercise federal jurisdiction or determine a question of federal law because they don't have chapter 3 status under Australia's Constitution. So the matter may have to be transferred to a Federal Court, with great delay and at great expense to the participants on both sides. That is not the way I believe that we should be encouraging our antidiscrimination laws to be operating in this country, and those seeking justice under them.
The final point I have on clause 12 is that it promotes divisive religion. A core part of this bill in sections 7 to 10 that I support is promoting respect, promoting equality and promoting compassion, as good religious tenets and teachings should do. The problem with clause12 is that it could allow people to use religion to create division and hatred. In my view, we should not be amending our discrimination laws to encourage that.
I'm a person of faith. I was raised Catholic. I went to a Catholic school. I go to church almost every weekend. I'm involved in my parish. My kids all go to Catholic schools. The foundation of my belief and my faith is in the core principles of the Bible, which are repeated in every chapter and every verse: love, respect, compassion and equality. They are the core principles of the Bible and religious teaching that I base my faith on. I cannot in good conscience understand why a clause included in this bill that could be used to undermine those principles of religion should be allowed. Doing so detracts from and undermines the core principle of the law that's outlined in clauses 1 to 10, and that is to protect people, to ensure that they are freely able to practice their religion and express their beliefs. This is an issue that was also identified again in the human rights committee report about the division that this could create. Dr Carolyn Tan, the chairperson of the Public Affairs Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, said:
… if in fact clause 12 doesn't do anything useful it's better to take it out, because it only causes greater division.
Now that is a perfect summation of some of the problems with this bill, and this bill raises serious concerns because it has been rushed. The Prime Minister made the commitment in 2018, yet here we are, on the eve of an election, and this still has not been dealt with. The government only provided amendments to this bill to the parliament this morning. We still don't know what they are; they haven't been introduced.
In conclusion, although I support extending the antidiscrimination framework to protect against discrimination on the basis of religious belief, we must ensure that this is not at the expense of protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination. The government should consider removing that clause—clause 12—and others, which, in my view, undermine that core principle that the bill won't protect people on the basis of their religious belief.
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (18:25): It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021. I want to address some of the remarks that we have just heard, because there was a lot of criticism around clause 12 of the bill. Make no mistake, my view is that this bill is weak. This bill is watered down. This bill will do only a little bit of good. I support it because it will do a little bit of good, but it won't do much in the grand scheme of things.
Clause 12 is actually where the rubber hits the road for this bill. People of faith wanted one thing from this parliament, they wanted one thing from this government, and that was a shield, not a sword. They want a shield to protect themselves from people who come after them because of what they believe—people who want to cancel them from society, who want to take their jobs, who want to strip them of titles. That's what we're talking about here.
Let me give the exact example of where harm is done. Previous speakers were asking questions out loud: 'Well, what can't you say? What is it the government is saying here that people should be allowed to say?' Let me tell you about this rabid right-wing extremist from Tasmania. Not really—it is the Archbishop of Hobart. His name is Julian Porteous. He's a Catholic archbishop. He committed the heinous crime of sending out a missive to students within the Catholic school system, and the missive was about the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. He sent it out to students in the Catholic school system—presumably mostly Catholics—to go home to their mostly Catholic parents, which you'd think would be just completely and utterly innocuous. A Catholic prelate was talking to his flock about the Catholic Church's teaching on a particular issue. As controversial as it might be for some, it shouldn't be controversial to note what is the church's teaching, particularly to people who are part of the Catholic Church system.
For that heinous crime, he was dragged before an antidiscrimination tribunal for simply articulating to his flock what the Catholic Church's teaching on a particular subject was. Now, that should have rung alarm bells all those years ago. That actually shows you that in this country we are not free to say what we believe when it comes to articles of faith. If an archbishop of a church is not free to articulate his church's teachings to people who are within his church's system, then we have a very, very big problem indeed. That's why, and I have no qualms in actually saying this, I hounded the former Attorney-General, whose original view was that there should be no clause in this act that overrides state-based laws, to include this. I hounded him personally for this to be in the bill. Others did too. Thankfully, as a result, it's included in this bill. Clause 12 is the Porteous clause, which says that a statement of belief in itself should not be something that gets you hauled over the coals. There might be those that say, 'Yes, but Archbishop Porteous actually didn't get found guilty,' or whatever they do in these jumped-up kangaroo courts, which are called antidiscrimination tribunals, that the states run. He didn't, because the matter was dropped by the complainant because of political pressure.
I have a distinct memory of the then commissioner that was overseeing this tribunal—this jumped-up kangaroo court—saying that she wished the complainant had kept that complaint going, because there was a case to answer. There was a case to answer of discrimination, because a Catholic archbishop told his flock what his church's teaching was with respect to marriage. That's what we are talking about here. That's what we are trying to protect: a Christian—or any other person of faith; a Buddhist—articulating a statement of belief, a genuinely held belief, from being hauled over the coals for that belief. That is wrong, and it just seems that I've entered this bizarre twilight zone where people don't get this. They don't get this argument. It's actually less Twilight Zone and more Orwell. It's Animal Farm, where everyone's endowed with rights, but some rights are lesser than others. The rights of Christians are certainly lesser than others in this country.
I could point to Citipointe Christian College—another school, if you want to know what gets you cancelled in this country—and its principal, who sent out a statement of biblical beliefs that he asked parents and students to sign up to at this Christian school. No-one forces anyone to go to a Christian school. It's not like you're trapped into it and you don't have a choice to go to a grammar school, a state school, a Catholic school or any other school, for that matter. But they arced up because this Christian school sent out a statement of Christian beliefs that it wanted its students and parents to adhere to. Yes, there were statements in that about sexuality. There were statements in that about gender. For that, fire and brimstone rained down upon that college. The principal left his spot. Thanks very much to all the political and media elite that actually trampled upon the college and cost a person their job. You didn't think of that, did you? You didn't think about all of the abuse that the receptionists at that college copped. I phoned them up the next day, sadly after they'd made the decision to pull that statement of beliefs. I phoned them up and I apologised to them for the actions of people in this place on both sides, actions that led to all of that abuse and led to their principal standing down, actions like those we saw from the Queensland government that said that they would launch an investigation, presumably to take away some legal status or funding that the school had.
This is where we've gotten to in this country. This is why this law is needed, as flawed as it is—and, boy, oh boy, it is flawed. It's flawed because it's watered down, and yet we have the Left screaming at us that this is somehow going to erode other people's rights. It's not. It's just going to, in a very dulled-down, watered-down, dampened way, ensure that, if people say something, they aren't ipso facto hauled before some tribunal to answer for their thought crimes. Very Orwellian, indeed.
What we've dropped out of this bill, which should have been in it, are all sorts of other protections. The so-called Folau clause, which was in this but is now not in it, has basically given way because there's a view that permeates this place, I guess, that the almighty dollar and profits are more important than people's religious beliefs. We've sacrificed that protection for workers. I don't know; will there be people who, in future, are sacked from their jobs, sacked from their work or sacked from their position or their profession because they articulate some form of Christian or religious belief? Probably, because it's happened before. I could actually quote you many people other than just Israel Folau who've lost their jobs, lost their contracts, lost their professions. I can tell you about doctors who have lost their professions because they privately posted their religious beliefs on their private social media pages. They lost their professions. That's the state of the nation right now when it comes to religious freedom—to be quite honest, there's very little. For those jokers, which is the only thing I can call them, who say, 'You're free to read the Bible; you're free to go to church,' you have no idea what religious liberty truly is. You have no idea what real faith actually is.
People who believe these things believe them innately. It forms part of their core. Belief is fundamental to human beings. When you believe in a religious system, in your creator, who has presented certain truths to you and to humanity, you take that in as a whole, not in bit parts that you can pick and choose and say, 'I'll flick that one off.' These people don't have the luxury of just saying, 'I won't believe that; I won't say that,' but when they do believe that they get in trouble for it in Australia. It's wrong. It's very, very wrong.
I am very sad that this has been watered down this much—it really has been watered down so, so much—because it is the hill we should die on. Without religious liberty—and this is the problem: this bill is about religious discrimination. What we wanted was religious liberty, not religious discrimination. We wanted religious liberty. I could quote you the words of a book that a lot of people should read if they don't get it. The book is The Benedict Option by American columnist Rod Dreher. He bemoans the fact that in the public square there is no space now for Christians. They have been drowned out, essentially—pushed out. But he says there is one cause that should receive all the attention that Christians have left for national politics, and that is religious liberty. It is critically important, he says. Without a robust and successful defence of religious liberty, Christians will not be able to actually build communal institutions that are vital to maintaining their identity and values. They're pushed out of the public square, relegated to their own institutions. They won't even be able to live those values genuinely if they don't have true religious liberty. The fact is that, because we've watered this down—and I'm quoting Rod Dreher here—and we haven't acted decisively within the embattled zone of freedom we have now, we are wasting precious time, time that may run out faster than we think. I think the time ran out a while ago for true religious liberty in Australia.
Again I quote Rod Dreher, from when he came to Australia. He came here just as the Folau situation burst forth, and he said:
It is positively perverse, though, to watch victorious progressives frenetically bouncing the rubble—
of the culture war being lost for Christian conservatives or religious conservatives. He wrote:
From observing the heretic-hunting hysteria surrounding the Israel Folau case, you would think that theocratic tyranny was about to breach the city walls. You would be hard-pressed to find a demographic with less cultural and economic power than Pentecostals of Pacific Islander descent, yet the good and the great of Australia's elite have bravely―oh so bravely!―destroyed the career of just such a man because he hath blasphemed—
against the zeitgeist.
This is the problem with all of this. What we see here with the watering down of this bill, and the fervent opposition to this watered down bill, is the fact that we have moved from being a Liberal democracy in this country to a woke mob democracy. We really have. We've jumped the shark as a nation. If you have an belief—innately held, held for centuries—that is not in line with the zeitgeist of the times and you dare utter it, then you are not just cancelled; there is currently legal action that can be taken against you for expressing those beliefs. Let that sink in. I don't know how people can't see how wrong that is.
As much as I'm critical of this bill—and I am, make no mistake—this is a wet lettuce. It will do a little bit of good in pushing back against this tide of rampant secularism that threatens to ride roughshod over every person of faith in this nation. So I'll take that little bit of good and hope so much more can be done in the future, although I doubt it. I have grave fears for the future of religious liberty in this country, very grave fears indeed.
Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (18:40): I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and its associated amendments. I'm proud to stand before the House today and represent my vibrant and diverse community of Macarthur. It's an electorate of many cultures and many faiths. A significant proportion of our population has ancestry other than Anglo-Saxon, ranging from Indigenous to Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish—like myself—and Islamic. We have all the different variations of those religions, and I respect and understand that faith is of great importance. However, I am opposed to this bill in its current form. I am opposed to the way it was introduced and I am deeply opposed to the way that this completely incompetent government is managing it.
I know that faith helps to connect communities. It connects people to their culture and their ancestry. It provides principles by which people strive to uphold their moral compass through their day-to-day lives and those of their families. As I've said, my community is home to many faiths, and I think that's a very good thing. I've worked with all our faith communities, and I enjoy working with all our faith communities. Our people are, of course, as diverse as their beliefs. We are consequently a very accepting and tolerant community. I have never had any complaints made to me by my constituents about any difficulty in practising their religion.
Before I came into this place, I worked for almost 40 years in my community as a paediatrician. As a paediatrician, you learn to ask many questions of the people you see. Questions are important. They're important in working out what's wrong with a child, they're important in working out the implications of their particular illness and, in particular, they're important in working out family history. The one question I never asked was about someone's religion, because it wasn't important to me. That's one of the beauties of Australia—we live in a country where there is religious freedom and always has been.
My ancestors came here as convicts. One of my convict ancestors, Abraham Rheuben, who, like myself, was Jewish, came here as a convict and rose to become a very prominent businessman in Tasmania. He was one of the founders of the Hobart Synagogue, which is the longest-standing synagogue in Australia. I'm very proud of that history. It makes me part of what I am. But in coming to Australia as a Jewish convict, he was still able to practice his religion. When he got his ticket of leave, he was able to get a land grant from the Hobart community on which to build the synagogue. I think that demonstrates that Australia has had a long history of religious freedom, and it's important that that continues. It's very important to me that we have religious freedom.
What I will say is that, in spite of our many faiths in our community, I don't hear a great deal of concern about religious discrimination. It is not happening in my community. I admit that it may happen in some other communities, but it certainly isn't in my community. I work with our faith leaders, be it through our independent schools—and I went to an independent Christian school, as did my children—our religious charities, our organisations, our churches, our mosques or our temples, and I know that my local residents feel free to practice their religion without any encumbrance.
I love how accepting and tolerant our society is and I am worried that this poorly drafted, multiple-amended legislation is, No. 1, so complex that it makes it very difficult to understand; No. 2, has still not been completely outlined by the government in terms of what it will contain; and, No. 3, has had so much opposition that even those who originally supported the legislation, like the previous speaker, feel that the legislation itself is—these are his words—'deeply flawed'.
I have no tolerance for discrimination in any sense of the word. As a paediatrician I treat all people equally. But I am concerned that the coalition appear to manufacture this issue whenever it is politically convenient to them, like the last speaker has been doing and as he has been doing during the pandemic with vaccines and appropriate public health measures.
As I say, I represent a very diverse community, and religious discrimination is just not raised in my community. I am Jewish. I recognise that anti-Semitism does occur, but the present laws are adequate for managing that. What needs to happen is more commitment, more education and more support to make sure that the community is aware that discrimination can occur. To put a law in place that has been poorly thought through, that interferes with state laws, that has not really been defined by the government and that's been rushed through in the last few sitting days of this parliament is totally inappropriate on every level.
Of course we should stand against discrimination and we should take a stand and action to prevent it at all costs, but the government is not trying to do this. We only have to have a look at their track record, with the 18C amendment, to see that it's not the endgame that they're worried about. It's a tool they use to attempt to create the illusion of division and perpetual fear. I do not like the way political games are being played with people's faith. I find it abhorrent and I accuse the government of doing just that. Many people in our society who fled persecution before calling Australia home are having their own fears played out by this government, and that is inappropriate.
I am a staunch defender of our basic human rights, including our right to practice our religion free of impost. Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are fundamental human rights, and they are fundamental to Australians. Labor have previously expressed our support for an extension of our antidiscrimination framework to ensure that all these freedoms are further entrenched in our society. But I do not feel that this legislation has been adequately explained, adequately explored or, indeed, even adequately defined by a government that is trying to rush it through for its own pathetic political ends.
I find it very disappointing that this government looks at issues around discrimination with only a binary stance in a very complex world. They can never strike a balance and they can never see the implications of their rhetoric. The coalition consistently tries to pit people against one another in many ways. As an example, the previous speaker has been talking to and supporting the demonstrators who have been out the front of Parliament House this week, with their anti-public-health stance. He's stirring up fright and fear inappropriately, and he's doing the same with this legislation. We need to ensure that any extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework does not remove the protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination. It shouldn't be such a difficult balance.
The coalition's track record on this is very poor. We shouldn't forget that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, promised in December 2018 to appoint a religious discrimination commissioner before the 2019 election. Of course, it didn't happen, like most of the Prime Minister's promises. It's his propensity to play politics with this issue that is very disturbing. It's not a straightforward piece of legislation, by any means. Most of the provisions of the bill are clear and consistent with our existing antidiscrimination frameworks, but there are aspects of this legislation that are complex, have very unclear ramifications and are quite contentious. We have already seen this play out in Queensland. There are concerns expressed by some leaders in communities of faith that aspects of the government's legislation may even result in increased discrimination for minority faiths. It stands in direct conflict to the government's messaging on his legislation on this issue. The legislation is incredibly complex. And the government's speech is very, very confusing. It beggars the question of why the government are bringing forward this legislation at the eleventh hour before an election, without even sorting out their own responses.
I have spoken to many members of the coalition who are opposed to this legislation. They feel it's unclear and inappropriate at this time, and they don't feel they have been given enough time to review it. I myself would like to take the legislation to my faith leaders in my community and ask them what they think about it. We haven't been given time to do that. It is horrific that this parliament would consider introducing inappropriate, poorly thought out and perhaps even dangerous legislation without having it reviewed. I just don't see the need to bring it in at the eleventh hour. I think it's a political tool that's being used by the Prime Minister in particular, and some of his cohort, and I think the government's actions should be seen for what they are.
Again, I stress that I support people's freedom to practise their respective faiths, as I practise mine. But, to any who believe that the coalition is actually standing up for their fundamental rights, I urge you to closely look at the government's track record and its timing. The introduction of this legislation, promised to Australians before the 2019 election, comes on the eve of a federal election and almost three years after the Prime Minister promised that a religious discrimination bill would become law. There's no denying that. The Prime Minister consistently claims that he is above the Canberra bubble, that he doesn't engage in politics, despite being only a career politician, and his tactics with this legislation show just what a hypocrite he is and what a facade that is.
I stand against discrimination in all forms and wholeheartedly support people's rights to practise their religion and to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they don't harm others. I do not support pitting people against one another, as those opposite consistently attempt to do. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes clear, religious organisations and people of faith have the right to act in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs, and teachings of their traditions and faiths. Many people support our existing federal antidiscrimination framework to protect people of faith, and rightly so. It's an important point and we must not allow it to be obscured and subsumed by the controversy over a handful of contentious provisions in the government's poorly thought through Religious Discrimination Bill.
The government has designed this specifically to do this task, to bring on conflict. In spite of their failings, in spite of their track record and in spite of the Prime Minister's broken promises and empty platitudes, those opposite would have Australians believe that this legislation is taking their concerns seriously. The Prime Minister has broken so many promises on this issue throughout his career, such as promising to work with the opposition to introduce a religious discrimination bill—that has not happened; to establish a working group of attorneys-general from across the states and territories—that has not happened; to have an inquiry through the Australian Law Reform Commission—that has not happened. Each of these is a broken promise from this coalition that is absolutely desperate. And here we are, right before an election, with a complex bill, without adequate time to review and consult, and the government is seeking to score political points off it. Even the Prime Minister's own backbench can recognise what he's doing. A lot of them are talking big. I doubt they have the courage to act, but I really do think they need to think seriously about not supporting this bill. The Prime Minister is obsessed with political pointscoring. Even his Deputy Prime Minister says that. Australians deserve better from their leaders. They deserve better from us. They deserve to have us ensure that any laws that are put onto the statute books have been adequately reviewed and adequately defined. Those opposite do not want to debate this bill, and their last-minute amendments show that. I recognise that religious freedom is important to our society, and I thoroughly support it, but I think this bill is deeply flawed and should not be passed.
Mr SHARMA (Wentworth) (18:56): As a matter of principle, people should be protected against discrimination because of their faith—that is, religion should be a protected attribute just as age, disability status, race and sex are. In principle, I support religious discrimination legislation which protects people against discrimination on the basis of their faith. It is right, for instance, that people of faith should not be discriminated against in employment decisions. They should not be discriminated against if they are of a minority faith and are seeking to get a job, or in the terms and conditions that are offered to them in employment because of their faith. They should not be discriminated against in questions of admission to professional bodies and associations. They should not be discriminated against with respect to clubs and registered organisations, access to premises, the provision of goods and services, accommodation, club membership, sports participation—all these sorts of things. Just as we would not tolerate, would not accept, people being discriminated against on account of their gender, race, age or disability for such things, nor should we allow or tolerate such practices because of someone's faith or religion.
I also accept the rationale for faith based communities and organisations, particularly that people should be able to organise themselves on this basis to establish schools, aged-care facilities, clubs and registered organisations and to pursue their spiritual and communal life in this way. Voluntary associations of people who share values and beliefs are what makes our communities diverse and strong. My own community, the Jewish community, have religiously based schools, aged-care facilities, hospitals, sporting clubs and other registered organisations. I accept and indeed would defend and protect their right to do this, just as I would for any other minority faith. So there are parts of this bill which I think are important and we should applaud.
Part 4 of the bill, which largely deals with protecting people of faith against discrimination in all these areas, is an important part of the bill. Section 7 of the bill, which allows for affirmative action decisions, if you like—positive discrimination among faith based communities, whereby they can preference hiring people of their own faith, preference members who share their own faith—is important and needs to be preserved. That's the sort of balance we need to strike in a fair and liberal society. But it's also important—to me and, I think, more broadly to the community—that human rights are equal and indivisible. That's what the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides, and that's what we as Australians have signed up to, being party to the treaty. That means that antidiscrimination like this should provide a shield, but it should not be enabled to be used as a sword.
It should protect people against discrimination , but it should not provide a licen c e for people to discriminate . I think that is where some of the difficulties arise with this bill.
Whi l st I broadly support legislation that protects people of faith against discrimination, I do share some of the concerns expressed in some of the committees and by some of my colleagues about elements within the bill —the statement - of - belief provisions, for instance . I think we ' ve made considerable progress from the earlier exposure drafts of this bill . The so-called Folau clause is no longer there . The so -called conscientious objection provision is no longer there. But there is a statement - of - belief provision within the bill — section 12 — which causes me to ask a number of questions. I ' m still reconciling myself to it, but I think it's important that I do canvass these doubts with the House.
Firstly, to my mind, all types of speech should deserve equal protection . It shouldn't matter whether a speech is religiously grounded or grounded in faith , in its nature , as a cause of the speech. Political speech should enjoy the same level of protection and freedom. Artistic speech should enjoy the same lev el of protection and freedom , as should i deological speech . It concerns me that we have a provision within this bill which seems, at least on the face of it, to privilege a certain kind of speech and give a certain kind of speech a special protection which other elements of speech lack.
As a federalist and someone who, generally speaking, supports the rights of states to regulate their own affairs in these matters, I ' m also a little uncomfortable with the overriding of state laws and, indeed, other federal antidiscrimination laws in this bill . I can understand the reason for doing this— and people have pointed to the Tasmanian antidiscrimination legislation in particular as a reason for doing this, but my answer would be, by and large, that that ' s for the Tasmanian s, the Tasmanian parliament and the Tasmanian government to fix.
I'm also concerned about whether this is workable from an employment and workplace perspective. During the two inquiries that were held we hear d from the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry about whether this provision would make it difficult for them to ensure harmonious workplaces and make sure that people were not given licen c e to say things in the workplace which would undermine the harmony and the cohesion of the workplace but to which the employer would have no redress.
There are some protections, though, in the statement - of - belief provisions, and I think it ' s important that we highlight those because a lot of the impact of th ese provision s will depend upon how the courts choos e to interpret the statement - of - belief provisions and how they choose to interpret some of the exceptions to the statement-of-belief provisions . In particular, p rotection does not a pply to a statement of belief that is malicious or that a reasonable person would consider would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or a group. I think that ' s an important protection . I know some take the view that this will, by and large, mea n that only innocuous or non -off ensive sorts of speech — the normal differences of opinion that should be and are, indeed, aired in public — would attract the protection of this provision and that other elements that cross a line into harassment , intimidation or vilification, either by the nature of what is said or by the persistence and the repetition of it , would not enjoy this protection . B ut this will be something for the courts to work out , and i t does give me some concern that the boundaries here are not particularly clear.
B eyond that , I'm also concerned about real - life issues of discrimination that are happening right now which are not the subject matter of this particular bill but which I think cannot be considered separate to this piece of legislation . These are the provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act which date from 2013. A t the time, these amendments broaden ed the protected attributes in that piece of legislation to include sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status and relationship status . B ut at the same time that they included those as protected attributes — that is , they en sured that people could not be discriminated against on those grounds or as a result of those attributes — there was also a carve - out for educational institutions established for religious purposes . This is what is now section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act.
That carve-out is not new. It has been with us for nine years now. It is causing real-world examples of discrimination. We heard, through these two parliamentary inquiries, real-life examples of teachers who are being dismissed because they came out as openly gay. We've heard of transgender students feeling like they've been hounded out of their schools because of their gender identity or uncertainty about their gender identity. We saw, just last week, Citipointe Christian College in Brisbane send out what I don't think anyone could fail to see as a spiteful and harassing communication to the parents of that school, demanding that they sign up to certain values; demanding, though, also, that they control, if you like, their sexual orientation or gender identity—as if that were a question of lifestyle choice rather than a question of personal attribution. I think these things that are happening are wrong. I think that example, of Citipointe Christian College, is wrong. I think the example of Karen Pack—who I met earlier today, and who believes she was dismissed from her teaching role because she came out and announced that she was marrying her partner—is wrong as well. And this is discrimination that is happening right now, in our schools in particular, and that I think we do need to address.
Now, I've been on the public record as saying that I believe these parts of the Sex Discrimination Act do need to be removed; they do need to be amended. It is my view that, in Australia, once we took the decision that we all did, collectively, in the marriage equality plebiscite, and once we passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage, we took a decision, collectively, as a community, as a nation, as a body politic, to say that we would no longer allow inequality in these spheres. But what we're dealing with here, with the Sex Discrimination Act and section 38(3), is unfinished business from that national decision. It's a carve-out that still allows discrimination on these grounds: discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, discrimination on the grounds of marital status—discrimination, indeed, even on the grounds of pregnancy. This is a relic that, I believe, the parliament needs to deal with. Removing section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act entirely I think would be the easiest way to do that. It would provide some protections, at least, for students. I know teachers would probably need to be dealt with in separate provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act.
I do accept and I do appreciate that the government has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to address these issues. But to my mind, this has taken too long. It has taken longer than it should have.
If we are considering this legislation, the religious discrimination legislation—which is strengthening the protections available to religious communities, and I don't disagree with that and have no problem with it—then we also need to make sure that we are looking after vulnerable communities whose disadvantage or susceptibility or vulnerability to discrimination we have not addressed. That's so particularly, I think, for children in schools—and, yes, for teachers as well, but particularly for children in schools—who are some of the most vulnerable people in our population, and particularly those who are struggling with issues like their sexual orientation or their gender identity. All the evidence is that mental health issues amongst our young people are particularly prevalent amongst this group of people, and we should not be making their lives harder by allowing them to be persecuted or vilified on account of attributes as to which they have no choice. These attributes are intrinsic to who people are, and to pretend otherwise, as Citipointe Christian College did, and as other institutions do from time to time, I think is not only incorrect from any number of biological or ethical perspectives but is antithetical to our own values.
There are important elements within this bill which I support. There are elements of it which I find concerning, and I will continue to have concerns about them. I notice, and I think it's important, that there is a review provision within the bill that provides for a new office of a Religious Discrimination Commissioner, which is an important office, to review and report back within two years. But what we must most importantly address now is the legacy ability to discriminate which already exists in our legal framework, which is already in our Sex Discrimination Act, which allows schools to discriminate against students and teachers on the basis of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. We have already committed to doing this. I know the government has already committed to doing this. It is time we cracked on and did it, because human rights are equal and indivisible, and, if we are addressing the rights of one particular community here, we also need to be addressing the rights of other vulnerable communities.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (19:11): It's normally my custom to come to this dispatch box and deliver a thundering, passionate address. There'll not be much thunder today, but there'll be no less passion. We're 10 sitting days from the end of this 46th Parliament. There's a crisis in our aged-care system. Hundreds of Australians are dying in understaffed, underfunded homes, and yet this government seems powerless or unwilling to do anything about it. Two years ago, the government promised a federal anticorruption commission, but the Attorney-General told us yesterday that no such promise will be delivered. There are skills shortages and supply shortages that are preventing businesses from opening and the economy from recovering. Interest rates will certainly rise, which will make the existing cost of living pressures on households even worse. These are the matters that we should be focusing on in the final weeks of this parliament. Instead, we will spend the best part of two days debating the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, a bill which pleases nobody.
I support freedom of religion and I understand that many in our community want to see the existing laws strengthened to protect their freedom of religious expression. Although we're a long way from the days where newspapers could lawfully carry an ad that said, 'Catholics'—my faith—'need not apply' for a job, I understand the desire for greater recognition and for rights for people of faith. But, regrettably, the sometimes toxic debate that has been unleashed by this bill has put a spotlight on the fact that no rights are unlimited. Where the exercise of one person's right comes crashing up against another person's freedom, we need to find a solution. It can be done, and it's the role of this parliament to do that. The contest of ideas and ways of life are usually dealt with by social norms, by civility and by human decency, and, regrettably, sometimes not. Unfortunately, when parliament steps in, the law has a very blunt way of dealing with them. If we are to do this then we must do it properly, thoughtfully and consultatively, and to date we have not.
If we are to believe the reports in today's paper, the government has failed to bring forward a law which protects children. For me, this is not an academic issue. Last week, my family said farewell to my nephew Wally. He was just 15 when he took his own life. No mother or father should have to endure this sight. No brother should have to clean up afterwards. He was a beautiful, creative, courageous young man. He was loved and accepted by his parents, by his family, by his friends and by his community. His mum and dad are in anguish. We all are. He was gay. He was uncertain about his gender, and he struggled with his mental health. But now he's gone, and we are no longer going to be able to love and support him on his journey through life. Clearly the love and acceptance of his family and friends were not enough.
My own son is a beautiful, creative, intelligent 14-year-old. He designs and makes his own clothes. He's a gifted make-up artist. He moves seamlessly between the wardrobes of men and women. He wears heels that give me vertigo and has more handbags than his sister. He has more courage than any other boy of his age that I've ever met. He swims against the tide. I love and support him unconditionally, and I brag about his talents to anybody who is willing to stop for two minutes and glance at his Instagram page. But I worry myself sick every time he leaves the house. I think to myself, 'You look beautiful, but do you have to go out looking like that?' Because I know that the love and protection that he enjoys from his mother, his friends and his family is very different to the reception that he may receive in the outside world. Could this be the day we receive the call that says something has happened, that he has been attacked for just being who he is?
Yes, this is about my kids. But it's not. It's about all of our kids. It's about the families of those kids. It's about every child who has had the courage to swim against the tide just to be who they are. Earlier today, the Prime Minister said we should exercise our power in this place with love. I know the cynic in all of us could easily giggle at that phrase and dismiss it as a political line, but I don't. I agree. I'm asking the Prime Minister to reflect on those words as we consider the bill. I'd ask the Prime Minister and every other member in this place to put themselves in the shoes of the parents, or the heels of their kids, as they step out in public. What message do we want this parliament to send to these kids? Are they as loved and cherished and respected as every other kid? Surely we aren't saying to them, 'It's okay if you are gay, just so long as we don't see it'? Surely we can do better than that.
At some stage, we have to do better than that, because the thing that every parent of every gay or trans kid knows is that the love and protection that we provide for them inside our family and inside our homes is not enough. At some stage, they have to step out into the world and deal with it as it is. We, as parliamentarians, have the power to shape that world by what we do, what we say and how we vote. What message do we want to send to our kids?
There's a simple ease with which the members of this place toss sausages on a charity barbecue, drink a beer, stick a hat on for a photo opportunity, smile for the camera and put on a footy jumper and cheer for their favourite team. I do it regularly. When we do that, we're signalling to Australia, or at least to Australia as we want to imagine it: 'We're just like you,'. But the fact is that Australia is a much more diverse place than that which we project from our pulpit in this place. Being an Aussie is about much more than punting on the Melbourne Cup or yelling, 'Go, Saints' or 'Go, Sharkies'. It's much more complex than that.
It's the high responsibility of all of us called to this place to reflect on and shape the sort of Australia that we want to have, and it's a bloody diverse place. It's black, it's white, it's brown, it prays in a church, it prays in a mosque, it prays in a shrine, in a synagogue, in a hall, or on a surfboard just behind the breaks. It's men, it's women, it's straight, it's gay, it's trans, it's intersex—it's the whole bloody lot. We are the Australia of Storm Boy, of Breaker Morant, of Puberty Blues, and, yes, of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. It's not easy crafting a national story that includes all of us, but that's our damn job—that's our job—and the national story must have a place for all of us and all of our kids: how we imagine them, but, more importantly, how they are. If a young kid has the courage to be themselves and own their identity, the very least that we can do—the very least—is to say: 'Welcome. We love you, and we respect you, and you're okay just the way you are.'
My family are grieving, like so many others. There have been too many funerals, too many grieving families. We have in our gift the power to do something. Let's not let the opportunity pass. I thank my friends who have come to provide support to me. I thank the Leader of the Opposition, my good friend, for sitting through what for me has been a difficult address. I know there will be many people listening or who will read the speech afterwards who want me to conclude with the words, 'Let's dump this bill.' But I'm not saying that. What I'm saying to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Prime Minister, if he'll listen, is: 'Let's take a step back. Let's imagine a national story that talks to all of us. Let's not do something in the name of freedom of religion that does damage or harm to those we love.' We've been to too many funerals. Let's get this done, but let's do it properly. Surely it is not beyond the wit and wisdom and decency of every member of this place to get this done properly. I thank you for your time.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (19:22): I'm pleased to speak in support of the Religious Discrimination Bill. I bring a particular perspective to this debate as a Jewish Australian who has served on the boards of religious and lay bodies in my own community, and as a former employee of the largest mission of the Catholic Church in Australia who has served both educational and health missions of the church. I hope I can speak to the great strength that faith based institutions and religion more generally offer our country. Working in a faith environment is deeply satisfying. You see a demonstration of faith in action through the mission and identity of the institution and the way it manifests itself in the interactions people have with one another.
As a person of faith, I believe that the maintenance of religion and religious institutions is vital to the moral ecology of our nation. I believe religion has a particular role to play in the world in bringing meaning into people's lives. It calls people to serve others, providing a sense of identity and a purpose to life that is larger and more enduring than fulfilling the needs of the material self. Faith brings people together from a range of different backgrounds and builds a sense of community. The search for meaning in people's lives has never been stronger than it is today. The 2018 Study of the Economic Impact of Religion on Society attempted to measure some of the economic contributions that faith groups make to our country. Religious people who attend services contribute an extra 30½ million hours of volunteering time in Australia each year. Being religious makes people more likely to donate money, not just to religious causes but to social good projects as a whole.
Christians have pioneered many of our great social institutions in aged care and in health and social services. The Royal Flying Doctor Service, Lifeline, Barnardos and Mission Australia all began as the work of Christian men and women who were motivated by the gospel to love God and their neighbour as themselves. If we return to the early days of the RSPCA in Britain, it was evangelical Christians who established that organisation as well. In the early 1980s here in Australia, when the AIDS virus first appeared, there was great panic about people who'd contracted AIDS and many hospitals were turning away HIV and AIDS patients. But the Sisters of Charity at St Vincent's Hospital in Darlinghurst, called by the Christian command to treat the poor and the sick, made the decision to admit, treat and care for patients with AIDS when others refused. At a time when little was known about the virus, this was an act of grace and courage. Over half of all the people with AIDS in Australia were treated at St Vincent's.
Our entire concept of human rights comes from what Jonathan Sacks has described as that radical idea at the heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition: that all people are made in the image and likeness of God. Whether we're tall or short, young or old, or able to speak and walk or severely limited in our ability, our lives matter and are of equal worth. This is an idea defended by the people of faith among us. When a society loses its sense of human dignity, that society loses its soul. I'm certainly not suggesting that only people of faith care about others—that's manifestly not the case—but I am suggesting that we should be careful about pulling too far away from our roots.
The church continues to play an extremely important role in our culture, a role that many people respect and cherish. Many people who are not churchgoers send their children to Christian schools. We have a Prime Minister who's open about his faith. Church institutions continue to play an essential role in the delivery of many services such as aged care and family support. Sixty per cent of Australians ascribe to some form of faith. There are over 150 different faith communities in this country. From European settlement until 1981 Judaism was the major non-Christian denomination, but since that time the number of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs has overtaken the number of Jews in this country. One of the exciting things about Australia's future will be the growth of its religious diversity. While there has rightly been a lot of talk about the way in which this bill will affect Christians, I suspect it will be the minority faiths that will most take advantage of its protections.
Some people have asked why this bill is necessary. The government's response has been in part because it completes a patchwork of discrimination law in this country, but this is only a partial answer. Unfortunately, we have to be clear eyed about the difficulties and discriminations that people of faith face in Australia today too. Anti-Semitism is on the rise. As reported at the annual conference of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry last year, during the 12-month period to 30 September 2021 there was an increase of 35 per cent in the overall number of reported anti-Semitic incidents to Jewish community organisations compared to the previous year. Behind the statistics lie some horrific personal stories of persistent anti-Semitic bullying of Jewish students at schools, the brutal physical assault of a man on his way to synagogue, the spray-painting of 'Free Palestine', 'F Zionists', 'Free Palestine' on the signage at the front of a synagogue in Adelaide, the flying of a Nazi flag above a synagogue in Brisbane and the draping of two Palestinian flags and two shredded Israeli flags at the front entrance of a synagogue in Sydney. What is perhaps worse is the disgraceful discourse online, occasionally in the mainstream media as well, of those who for whatever reason seek to rationalise or minimise this egregious behaviour.
In 2017, when I served on the PJCHR's inquiry on free speech in Australia, I remember Muslim community leaders asking for the extension of the Racial Discrimination Act to cover their community. Their leaders produced a number of examples of discrimination against Muslims at that time. Today the Islamophobia Register contains several examples of discrimination against Muslims in Australia, and these will help illustrate the point. A Muslim female applicant went to a job interview without her hijab, knowing she had a lower chance of employment if she wore one. Having secured the job, she started wearing her hijab. The employer was not happy, saying he wouldn't have hired her if he'd known she wore a hijab. In another case, a patient seeing a Muslim doctor complained about how, 'A Muslim got on the premises,' and that, 'We don't want their sort here.' She refused to see the Muslim doctor. A doctor wearing a headscarf seeing a patient was told in a dehumanising manner: 'That's not touching me. That's not my doctor. Get me another doctor.'
It's not just Muslims and Jews. Buddhists in my electorate have told me about public libraries that refuse to stock their holy books. In October 2018 a Hindu temple in Regents Park was set on fire during one of its most sacred times of the year. Prayer carpets were burned and statues of Hindu gods were destroyed. It was really disgraceful behaviour.
Even today Sikh doctors and health workers are discriminated against in six Australian jurisdictions, being forced to choose between shaving their beards, contrary to their religion, so they can fit a surgical mask or practising medicine. In New South Wales and Western Australia the Clinical Excellence Commission has approved the wearing of surgical masks on top of an elastic band, obviating their need to say shave, but elsewhere Sikh doctors are being stood down at a time when we need them most.
While there are fewer physical threats against Christians, there is a cultural and existential threat to Christianity as people have tried to delegitimise the place of Christianity in the public square and force it off the national stage. The public position of Christians has been weakened through not just a decline in religious observance but also a decline in the level of religious literacy and empathy for religion among the general population.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER: It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the House do now adjourn.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Lilley Electorate: Budget Submission
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (19:30): Mr Speaker, as of today, over 90 per cent of the eligible Queensland population are fully vaccinated, a fact I'm sure you will celebrate as much as I do. Unfortunately I cannot be in my electorate of Lilley today to celebrate this joyous day that we have waited so long for, but I would like to take this opportunity that we have here tonight to thank our healthcare workers, nurses, general practitioners and everybody who has helped in the vaccine rollout in places like the Doomben Racecourse and the Boondall entertainment centre over the past 11 months to achieve this record. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the vast majority of northsiders who have collectively agreed to roll up their sleeves and get the jab, to protect our community. This major milestone signposts the next stage of our social and economic recovery beyond COVID.
In January I sent a survey to every household in Lilley asking for feedback on which local infrastructure and community projects we need funded to create new jobs and boost our local economy. The responses I have received to this, in addition to feedback I have received from conducting mobile offices across every suburb and at community events across my electorate, have been used to inform our 2022-23 Lilley budget submission. This is a budget submission by the people of Lilley, for the people of Lilley. It includes a list of our local funding priorities relating to sporting infrastructure, roads and transport, the Urban Congestion Fund, health, education and community initiatives. I seek leave to table the 2022-23 Lilley budget submission for the consideration of the Treasurer ahead of the release of the next federal budget, in March.
Leave granted.
Ms WELLS: Lilley residents will remember this element of cooperation to try and get all of our local projects funded in the coming budget that we will see from the Treasurer in March. It was disappointing that literally none of the budget projects that we submitted last financial year were accepted by the Treasurer, but I have hopes that generosity will prevail in the coming weeks and that we will finally get some of these much-needed infrastructure projects.
In the 2019-20 financial year Brisbane recorded the highest population growth rate of all Australian capital cities, at 1.9 per cent. In 2021, despite extended COVID lockdowns in Victoria and New South Wales, more than 30,000 new residents called Queensland home. You can't blame them. We are the best state in the country. This significant population influx has a ripple effect on employment, housing affordability and the cost of living and infrastructure needs. We need more support for small businesses who have been affected by COVID. One Nundah business owner recently wrote to me asking for help. She said: 'It is so sad to see shops closing all over town. We are struggling to make ends meet and we feel like we are doing it all alone.'
The Prince Charles Hospital desperately needs a fully funded MRI licence so northsiders have access to life-saving scans through a public system. We need a planning study to identify solutions to fix Gympie Road. Since 2015 Gympie Road has been identified by the RACQ and by the AAMI Crash Index as the most dangerous and one of the most congested roads in Queensland. The Brisbane Netball Association at Bradbury Park celebrated their 50th anniversary this year. The ageing clubhouse is a constant drain on the association's resources, and they desperately need a new facility. These are just a handful of the projects that my electorate of Lilley are asking the Morrison government to fund in their upcoming budget, in late March, when we come back to this place.
There are so many more worthy projects that we could get onto, but let's start with these most urgent ones first. I urge the Treasurer and the Prime Minister to put their money where their mouths are, to take the submission that we are tabling here in the House tonight and to deliver the funding for these projects that our community needs. It will be such an exciting time for Brisbane in the next 10 years as we approach the 2032 Olympics and all of the opportunities that that presents us. Every single sporting club is coming to me and saying, 'If we have the capacity to house an international standard, with different countries coming to visit, that will provide us with legacy infrastructure that will allow us to support the communities that we love in the years to come.' I look forward to us working across the aisle—I see the member for Fairfax there—with our state government, with the federal government and with local government to make sure that each of these worthy sporting clubs get those opportunities in the 10 years coming, alongside other worthy projects like road, infrastructure and supporting our health infrastructure like the great Prince Charles Hospital.
Mr Speaker, I thank you for the time to speak tonight. I wasn't expecting to get to do it in the end, but I'm very pleased that we have used this opportunity to table the Lilley budget submission for 2022-23.
The SPEAKER: That makes two of us.
Groom Electorate: Oakey Army Aviation Centre
Mr HAMILTON (Groom) (19:35): I share the previous speaker's surprise at my speaking at this time. The town of Oakey in my electorate of Groom is a very proud garrison town. If you drive down the main street in the morning, you'll see plenty of men and women in uniform dropping off their kids at school or shopping in the street before heading into the base some five minutes outside of town.
Just a few weeks ago I was speaking to the owner of Oakey's Great Country Pies, Vicki Reeves, about the impact of this defence trade on the town. When the base closes for the Christmas break, there's a noticeable drop in pie sales. Conversely, when there's a big project going on at the base, like the construction of the new medical centre, the demand for these delicious baked goods peaks. I refer to this as the Oakey pie index, or the OPI. It's a fantastic measure of regional fiscal health. With the shop's main customer base in Acland, and the Acland mine having closed recently, trade—particularly from those members of the Defence Force—is so important. That's why attracting new investment and opportunities to the Oakey Army Aviation Centre is so important to me.
One of my key focuses as the member for Groom is that I want to see defence spending at Oakey double over the next decade, and I think we're very well set for that. We're located as a significant part of defence across Australia, with ample space to expand, perfect flying weather and a strong track record of being able to host our allies long term. We've seen a very successful partnership with the Republic of Singapore, which has chosen to have five Chinooks based at Oakey, and that number is soon to increase to 10. We frequently see these helicopters flying with our own in joint training exercises, and they recently flew in an emergency response capacity during the 2020 bushfires. Once again, I take the time to thank the Republic of Singapore for their support. This partnership also boosts our local supply chain, with maintenance of these helicopters occurring on site. I strongly support the continuation of this program and would, in fact, like to see the opportunity for more allies to take up a similar residency. Certainly, there are extensive grounds for expansion out at the Oakey base. It's wonderful to have seen the Singaporean base built by local contractors.
I was extremely heartened to see the minister's personal interest in the base and its future during his visit last Wednesday. He came to officially open the new $18 million health centre I mentioned earlier. This new health facility brings together primary healthcare services, dental services, mental health care, physiotherapy, rehabilitation and pharmacy services on base to keep our people fit for life and fit for the fight, in the words of the minister at the time. It's such an important investment to make in our people, and one of the things we can do as a government is to make sure we always provide the best services to our fighting men and women. It's a significant boost and one that shows this government's great faith in the people and the role that the army aviation centre plays.
The next big investment we need to see at Oakey is securing a new fleet of helicopters. The fast-tracked retirement of the MRH-90 Taipan and Tiger helicopters presents an opportunity for us in this regard. While these models are being phased out between 2025 and 2028, Australia will be taking delivery of new model Black Hawks, Foxtrot and Apache helicopters. Where better to base them than along General MacArthur's old 'Brisbane Line'? In fact, if you look at the old 'Brisbane Line', you'll see it curves up to include Toowoomba, where the Bowenville bomber was, at the Oakey base. If it was good enough for MacArthur, it's good enough for me. The 'Brisbane Line' was an acknowledgement of the advantages of having strong defences in South-East Queensland to protect against aggression from the north. A new fleet would also bring with it new maintenance and training opportunities, further expanding the significance and the role of the Oakey Army Aviation Centre. As the Groom MP, it's my priority to ensure that in this period of change we do not take a backwards step. I want to make sure we capitalise on the situation and we grow at the Oakey Army Aviation Centre.
I know that my ambitions for the base are also supported by the work that the leadership at the centre has put in, and I'd like to highlight the contributions made by the former commandant of the base, Colonel Charlie Barton, who retired at the end of last year. I know that his replacement, Colonel David Lynch, brings a very steady pair of hands to continue guiding the base's growth, and I appreciate very much his confidence and support in helping to further build those links with the Oakey community.
Perhaps reflective of my surprise coming here, I'll end quickly by saying I think there's a wonderful place for Oakey to play in Australia's defence future. (Time expired)
Health Care
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (19:40): Just over two years ago, on 25 January 2020, the first case of COVID-19 was detected in Australia. While our initial response was strong and we took advantage of our isolation on an island, according to Jane Halton and others, we've fallen short in the second half of the game and we've seen policy responses swing through a cycle of panic and neglect. In consulting broadly across the health sector, almost everyone I've spoken to agrees that Australia would benefit from a royal commission into the health response to the pandemic and preparedness for future challenges. Various epidemiologists have highlighted that Australia did not learn enough from SARS and MERS, which were warning signs of what could happen with COVID-19. We routinely conduct military exercises and constantly prepare for the unlikely event of a physical invasion or terrorism incident, yet the chance of a global pandemic invading our shores has not been the subject of a preparedness exercise since 2008.
Thankfully, our geography gave us an advantage, and we were able to stave off and slow the arrival of COVID, giving us time to prepare, wait for the vaccine to be developed and dust off the plans. But the latest wave of omicron has shown that, despite a two-year head start, we still have not got the plan right. People are dying, we lack testing capacity, hospitals are stretched, and the aged-care system is failing to the point where we're talking of the military needing to be deployed to meet the shortfall in staff. It's for this reason that I am calling for a royal commission to be established immediately, with an interim report to be delivered as soon as possible, to ensure we identify the gaps in the current system, prioritise areas for improvement across the whole system to better prepare for the next variants and future pandemics, and prepare for the challenges of an ageing population and the associated increase in chronic disease. Such a commission should cover mental health services, which continue to struggle under the load of the pandemic and see surging call numbers.
In January, Lifeline hit its highest number of daily calls since the beginning of the pandemic at 3,600 calls across the network, double what was considered 'a big day' before COVID. Similarly, our hospital system has been stretched beyond capacity. It's not sustainable to continue at the pace we are. The pandemic has delayed the diagnosis and treatment of many other conditions and diseases, including cancer, and that's dangerous and negligent. It has also prolonged the pain and suffering of many who are waiting for elective surgery. General practices have been the backbone of our response to the pandemic, especially the vaccination program, yet they need a refresh to include a more holistic approach, including mental health as a key component of general practices, with professionals more closely integrated into the system. Rather than a volume based model, we actually need an outcome based model.
Finally, the aged-care sector is in crisis. There's no point in denying it. We knew this already, and we have the recommendations of the royal commission. It's there to implement. It needs to be implemented with even greater urgency.
We need a royal commission into the health sector as a whole that integrates federal and state responsibilities, primary care, delivery of services, acute care, intensive care, aged care, mental health and our pandemic response, in particular. We need to properly assess the management of our medical stockpile, supply chains and medical research investment to ensure preparedness. We must learn from the last two years. This is not about political pointscoring. This is not about looking at the overall response. I know the opposition are talking of JobKeeper and other things. This is actually talking about how we are going to make sure we save lives in the future and make sure we learn from the mistakes that have happened and understand properly what has worked and what hasn't worked.
We have been a divided nation, with different states going their different ways. This is not the best practice model. The pandemic is not over. We need to improve our ability to respond to the next wave and the one after that. We need to analyse what has worked and what hasn't. We need to increase transparency around health and medical advice and adopt a more consistent national approach. We need Australians to be able to have trust and faith in the medical advice of the chief health officers and to understand the distinction between the medical advice and the political decisions that governments need to make. We owe it to all Australians, and especially to our health workers, to make sure we have a sustainable health model.
New South Wales: Infrastructure
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (19:45): When it comes to infrastructure, the Left cannot be trusted, whether they call themselves Labor, Greens, Climate 200, fake Independents. Some people are coming up with preposterous names, like Simon Holmes a Court. That sounds like a character out of a French spy novel. But they're all Left.
When Labor came to power in Victoria in 2014 it tore up signed contracts to build a desperately needed roads project to connect the east and west of Melbourne, costing taxpayers over $1.1 billion. There's nothing the Left love more than spending money on things that don't happen. When they were elected in 2017, the Western Australian government, not to be outdone by their comrades in Victoria, decided that they were going to scrap the Perth Freight Link. Unfortunately, it didn't cost as much, so they cancelled a few other things.
It should come as no surprise, none whatsoever, that this is the headline act of the Minns' Labor, Greens, Climate 200, fake Independents, 'Voices of' group government to come to power or, if they ever get elected anywhere, they want to get rid of the Beaches Link on the Northern Beaches. This is a project that has been taken to two elections—a proposed 11-kilometre tunnel that will link the Northern Beaches to the Warringah Freeway in North Sydney—and that is now 40 years overdue.
We wouldn't be in this position if it weren't for the years of neglect under the former Labor governments of Bob Carr and Kristina Keneally. They were happy to grant licences for offshore oil platforms, because I guess they believed that no-one cares what the people of the Northern Beaches think. But I say, very clearly, that we want roads, not offshore oil platforms—a licence granted by the Labor Party, renewed by the Labor Party and supported by the Independents. They say: how dare we get an upgrade on the medieval drawbridge at Spit Junction and the pothole-riddled, flood-prone Wakehurst Parkway, which links the rest of Sydney. This drawbridge does have the advantage that, in times of national emergencies, when, from time to time, the Labor Party does get elected, we can of course raise it and keep out the hordes.
A potential New South Wales Labor government would rather spend it on 'more public transport in Western Sydney'. Leaving aside that Chris Minns doesn't seem to understand the difference between capital expenditure and operational expenditure, such a suggestion underlines that the New South Wales Labor Party was, remains, and always will be, intellectually bankrupt. Rather than capital projects that last generations and assure a better future, Labor would like to find something where the issue is less acute, to increase the risk, increase stress and increase debt on the budget, with an operational expenditure idea yet to be conceived.
Have they got a grudge? Do they hate the people of the Northern Beaches? They can't escape the facts on this one. They're ignoring one of the most congested roads in Sydney, being the A8 corridor. What is banking up on Pittwater Road stems back to the Warringah Freeway and clogs up Greater Sydney transport systems. They are turning away from fixing one of the worst road systems in the state—Wakehurst Parkway—which shuts down, on average, six times a year due to flooding. Find me another project across the country that yields higher commuter time savings than this one, slashing 27 minutes between Brookvale and the Sydney CBD and up to 56 minutes from Dee Why to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. And guess what, Mr Minns? That is the same for buses. When you compare those time savings to other transport projects in New South Wales, literally nothing beats it. The $26 billion metro system actually saves less than five minutes, the $8 billion Sydney Metro Northwest saves less than nine minutes, and the $25 billion Westconnex saves less than 20 minutes. And there are increases in productivity. Beaches Link will be pivotal in expanding Sydney's Eastern Economic Corridor, which contributed two-thirds of New South Wales' economic growth. But, no, Labor would rather make 60 per cent of the local Northern Beaches residents, who commute by car and bus, get up an hour earlier each day just to put food on the table, because they can't be bothered.
Macquarie Electorate: Equine Studies
Macquarie Electorate: Health Care
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (19:50): The New South Wales government plans to cut equine courses from Richmond TAFE are ringing alarm bells in the Hawkesbury. The government plans to cut three racing industry courses. Certificate III in Performance Horse Studies and Certificate IV in Farriery will move into animal studies. This will completely shut down the equine studies at the Richmond campus in my electorate, with its purpose-built arena, and slash 12 jobs.
The Hawkesbury has a vibrant local equine industry, which contributes to the rural feel of the region. There's racing, and the Olympic sports of show jumping, dressage and cross-country. There's everything from world-class polo to the grassroots pony clubs. There are studs where private owners are breeding the next champions, weekend pleasure riders with a horse or two on agistment, and, of course, the veterinary industry that supports them all.
The Hawkesbury's local strategy planning statement estimates equine services to be worth nearly $160 million annually to our region. It is completely unfathomable, then, why New South Wales wants to axe these courses in the heart of the Hawkesbury. Global racing giant Godolphin, which has state-of-the-art facilities at Agnes Bank, is among the local operators who've employed students enrolled in the TAFE course. Melbourne Cup-winning jockey Darren Beadman tells me it's something the industry desperately needs. Respected educator Lindy Maurice echoes Darren's views that working with horses is dangerous and employers want to provide the safest environment possible for workers. Darren and Lindy say that the TAFE training helps their workers stay safe.
COVID has meant that people from places like the UK and Ireland, who've traditionally worked in the industry here, are simply not arriving in the same numbers. TAFE boosts the pool of trained local workers, but the New South Wales government is encouraging that pool to dry up. The New South Wales Teachers Federation describes the plan as short-sighted and reckless and said that the government's using COVID to cite low student enrolments as justification to close these courses down. Everything suggests that this is about offloading this training to private providers.
We know the Liberals don't mind seeing the death of TAFE by a thousand cuts, but undermining Hawkesbury TAFE undermines the local equine industry. And what does that mean for the future of the Hawkesbury? If our horse industry goes elsewhere it means more land for development, and the only people who win from that are the developers.
I don't know a single mountains person who would say that there's no need to rebuild the nearly 100-year-old Katoomba Hospital. At a recent community meeting, a doctor who works there said, 'Doctors and nurses achieved extraordinary outcomes despite the outdated facilities.' But he described one of the consequences being that the hospital, at times, delivers Third World results in a First World country. We don't have an intensive care unit or 24/7 emergency surgery. We don't have an MRI. We don't have adequate orthopaedic or rehabilitation facilities. We need better palliative care facilities. Cheryl spoke with me just this week from her own loved one's experience about how desperate that need is.
We need more mental health facilities. Shiny new plans were rolled out on the eve of the last state election, and our community and hardworking healthcare workers were told that improving services was a top priority of the Liberal state government. But, since then, silence. Apparently, those promises should never have been made because there was no commitment by the government to upgrade it. Blue Mountains MP Trish Doyle, who's identified the inadequacies over many years, highlighted from the recent New South Wales inquiry that there is no agreement on where a new hospital will go, no funding for the planning, and no current plans to upgrade the existing facilities despite leaking roofs and outdated facilities.
So here we are, back at square one. We desperately need action from the New South Wales government to start the planning so that construction can get underway. Let me be clear: after a decade of inaction by the Liberals, we need action now. We need a fit-for-purpose public hospital in the upper mountains. The community is united in this call. At a local, state and federal level, all Labor elected representatives have been joined by councillors and candidates of all colours. This is a good thing. The hospital auxiliary has been part of this battle. The local Leura garden group has been part of the battle. Doctors and nurses have been part of this battle over many, many years. Now it needs a New South Wales government to hear the calls and stump up the funds for the planning. It's what our community deserves.
Grey Electorate: Roads
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (19:55): I've got some good news to share with you. Today, the heavy work began on the duplication of the Augusta Highway beginning at Port Wakefield, with the first two sections to go through to Lochiel. That's a distance of about 32 kilometres. That section will cost $260 million, of which the Commonwealth is supplying $200 million, with the state picking up the balance, of course. It's 200 kilometres to Port Augusta, so it's a start, and we've got a long way to go. But it is a road that is carrying increasing traffic to the north and west of South Australia, where, in fact, many of our resources sit. Companies like BHP and OZ Minerals are already hard at work and looking to extend their operations in that part of the state. So there is a lot happening. There's a lot of excitement. My attitude on the duplication of the highway is that it needs to be done. Traffic loads are lifting all the time. And what we really need to do is make a start, and then we'll see where we go with the next tranche of that. Today, it began.
There is also money—in the $206 million released by the Deputy Prime Minister a couple of weeks ago—for a final plan or an advanced plan on the duplication of the section between Crystal Brook and Port Pirie. That would seem to be not contiguous, and I know that many are not aware of that section of the road, but that's around another 80 kilometres north of this first section. The reason for that is that Crystal Brook is a sort of feeder or commuter suburb for Port Pirie, and there are a lot of people who live in one place and work in the other and commute each day. That is actually the busiest section of the road, between Port Wakefield and Port Augusta, so it makes sense to make a move there. There are four intersections there, one of which has claimed a number of lives over a long period of time. So I'm really looking forward to getting that planning process done and then getting the finance allocated to get that section of the road done as well. If we build on the progress of what began today, we can make great progress in the future.
Of course, I talk about good news, and, as the member for Grey, I can hardly believe the amount of works for infrastructure, particularly roadworks, that are going on around my electorate. There's over a billion dollars of Commonwealth funds either spent, under construction or committed for highways. We're looking at the duplication of the Joy Baluch AM Bridge in Port Augusta; the overpass and dual lanes through Port Wakefield, which are due for completion around the middle of this year, and the overpass is already open; upgrades on the Horrocks Highway, the Barrier Highway, the Eyre Highway, the Flinders Highway, the Tod Highway, the Lincoln Highway and the Stuart Highway—which we've had a little bit of trouble with lately; it's been cut for a couple of weeks—and the widening of the roads. We know one of the great ways to spend public money is to widen out the roads and flatten them, and then you've got much safer roads to travel on.
Then there's the road from Arthurton to Minlaton down on the Yorke Peninsula. That was one of the things that I raised when I first came into politics: 'We need to get this road fixed.' Up until the last three years, we haven't really had a state government in South Australia that was all that interested in that part of the world. But we've come together now, the state and federal governments, and we're getting on with the job there. We're sealing the Strzelecki Track, another one that's had a little bit of trouble with water in the last few weeks, it has to be said, and it has been closed. But there's nearly 80 kilometres of that completed now, I understand, even though I haven't been up there to see that work for a little while.
It's a great pleasure, but it's almost awe-inspiring to see the amount of work going on around the electorate at the moment. I've had a few complaints from people saying, 'I'm sick of the hold-ups, and I'm sick of the "GO SLOW" signs.' When I get one of those complaints, I say to them, 'I can't tell you how pleased I am to hear that you have been delayed by roadworks.'
House adjourned at 20:00
NOTICES
The following notices were given:
Mr Littleproud to present a Bill for an Act to establish a national voluntary framework for projects to enhance or protect biodiversity, and for other purposes. (Agriculture Biodiversity Stewardship Market Bill 2022)
Mr Sukkar to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Terrorism Insurance Act 2003 in order to establish a cyclone and related damage reinsurance pool operated by the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation, and for related purposes. (Treasury Laws Amendment (Cyclone and Flood Damage Reinsurance Pool) Bill 2022)
Mr Morton to present a Bill for an Act to repeal certain Acts and provisions of Acts and to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, and for related purposes. (Regulator Performance Omnibus Bill 2022)
Ms Coker to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that under the Government, Australia's aged care sector is in crisis due to almost nine years of neglect and funding cuts;
(2) notes that:
(a) after 21 expert reports, the Government knew older people were suffering in residential aged care and did nothing to fix the problems;
(b) the pandemic has exacerbated the structural problems and exposed the weaknesses in the aged care sector and the Government has done nothing to protect or support aged care workers or residents; and
(c) the Government has failed to plan ahead and has failed to supply aged care workers with adequate supplies of personal protection equipment; rapid antigen tests (RATs) and surge workforce which has led to tragic, unnecessary suffering and deaths of residents; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) urgently supply resources, such as RATs needed to help aged care workers get back to work and to ensure residents in aged care get the care they deserve; and
(b) implement all the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, and end the neglect.
Ms Murphy to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) access to high quality education, skills and training opportunities is a fundamental right;
(b) too many Australian students are prevented by social, economic and geographical barriers from accessing this right;
(c) the inequity in education, skills and training opportunities has been exacerbated by the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and the Government's decisions to, amongst other things, increase the cost of higher education, refuse to fund free access to public TAFE and neglect of the needs of the school system;
(d) in contrast, Labor has a range of commitments to make education and training more accessible, including to:
(i) make child care cheaper for 97 per cent of Australian parents;
(ii) support 10,000 New Energy Apprenticeships;
(iii) introduce an Australian Skills Guarantee;
(iv) provide 465,000 free TAFE places and up to 20,000 new university places; and
(v) invest $440 million to improve ventilation in classrooms and provide more counselling and psychological support; and
(e) more needs to be done to assist students who are disengaged in learning, or who do not respond to traditional school programs; and
(2) further notes that one of the standout success stories in achieving this is, Hands on Learning, a program first piloted at Frankston High School in 1999 by Russell Kerr, OAM, that builds wellbeing, engagement, and attendance by creating opportunities for students to discover their talents and experience success through significant and authentic hands-on projects, that results in 95 per cent of Hands on Learning students finishing school, getting an apprenticeship or getting a job.
Dr Freelander to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises the significant impact that COVID-19 is continuing to have on the day-to-day lives of Australians;
(2) notes that the Government has demonstrably failed in preparing the nation to be able to live with COVID-19, with;
(a) significant shortages of basic necessities prevalent in our supermarkets and shops;
(b) many communities being unable to access Rapid Antigen Tests, and countless examples of price gouging of these essential medical supplies; and
(c) issues in supply chains, workforces and a lack of support from the Government continuing to wreak havoc on small businesses and employees;
(3) further notes that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services would rather go to the cricket than show up and do their jobs while Australians continue to suffer; and
(4) condemns the Prime Minister and the Government for:
(a) their lack of foresight;
(b) their lack of planning;
(c) their lack of leadership; and
(d) abrogating their responsibilities to everyday Australians.
Ms Sharkie to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) an estimated 4.4 million Australians, or one in five, live with a disability, and an estimated 1.9 million, or almost half of people with disability, are aged over 65 years;
(b) by 2057, it is projected there will be 8.8 million older people in Australia, or 22 per cent of the population;
(c) a person living with spinal cord injury who was over 65 years of age at the time of the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), would likely be eligible for a Level 4 Home Care Package valued at an estimated $52,000 of funding per year, yet if the same person were eligible for the NDIS they would likely receive average annual funding of $162,000;
(d) the Age Discrimination Act 2004 was amended in 2013 to allow the NDIS to exclude people who acquire a disability after the age of 65 years;
(e) in 2014 while considering the National Disability Insurance Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2013, the DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013 and related bills, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights:
(i) noted that while partial or temporary exemptions to provisions of anti-discrimination statutes may be necessary, a general exemption should in general be avoided;
(ii) considered that the goal of phasing in the NDIS could be achieved without adopting the general exemption from the provisions of the Age Discrimination Act 2004 to exclude applicants aged over 65 years; and
(iii) recommended that the Disability Reform Council consider the cut-off age of 65 years and supports offered by the aged care system in its review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013;
(f) the 2015 Independent Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 considered NDIS age-related eligibility requirements to be out of scope, and rather noted the matter for the Government's consideration;
(g) the Productivity Commission's 2017 study report regarding NDIS costs identified policy options for government investigation including changing or removing the NDIS entry cut-off age and better aligning the aged care and NDIS systems;
(h) the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme's report, Transitional arrangements for the NDIS, recommended that the Department of Health (DoH) and the Department of Social Services review supports and funding for people with disability over 65 years of age with a view to developing a strategy to address funding and supply shortfalls, with the Government responding in 2018 that:
(i) the care and support of Australians aged 65 years and over, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 50 years and over, including those with a disability, was the responsibility of the DoH;
(ii) the interface between aged care and the Commonwealth Continuity of Support program was under consideration;
(i) the age-related eligibility requirement under the NDIS was considered out of scope for the purposes of the Review of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 undertaken by Mr David Tune AO PSM in 2019;
(j) recommendation 72 of the final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety called for people aged 65 and over living with a disability to receive supports equivalent to NDIS participants; and
(k) the Spinal Life Australia Disability Doesn't Discriminate campaign has:
(i) secured over 20,000 signatories and support of over 26 organisations;
(ii) supported two people with disability to lodge complaints with the Australian Human Rights Commission; and
(iii) written to the Australian Human Rights Commission asking them to conduct an inquiry into this discrimination under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986; and
(2) calls on the Government to identify how it will act to end this age discrimination to ensure that people who would be eligible for the NDIS but for their age receive equivalent supports to those provided to people under 65 years of age, whether through:
(a) the development of a new Aged Care Support at Home Program; or
(b) the removal of age eligibility criteria under the NDIS; and
(3) encourages state and territory ministers to work with the Government on this matter.
Mr Falinski to move:
That this House:
(1) recognises that 20 February 2022 marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and Poland;
(2) acknowledges that Poland and Australia enjoy a significant tradition of cooperation which started much earlier than the establishment of full diplomatic relations on 20 February 1972; and
(3) honours:
(a) the long history of Polish settlement Down Under; and
(b) Polish-Australian bonds of friendship that reflect a true partnership between our nations.
Dr Haines to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, and for related purposes. (Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2022)
Dr Haines to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to telecommunications, and for related purposes. (Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Faster Internet for Regional Australia) Bill 2022)
Mr Zappia to move:
That this House:
(1) notes that naval shipbuilding:
(a) is critical to:
(i) the Australian economy;
(ii) sovereign capability; and
(iii) national security;
(b) creates thousands of specialist jobs across advanced engineering and high technology industry sectors;
(2) further notes:
(a) that the termination of the Naval Group French submarine contract caused the loss of thousands of jobs and contracts with defence industry sector businesses;
(b) the continued uncertainty relating to the Australia-United Kingdom-United States nuclear submarine announcement about:
(i) where the submarines will be built;
(ii) who will build them;
(iii) Australian workforce participation in the build;
(iv) the workforce skills required;
(v) the number of submarines required;
(vi) the cost of the replacement submarines; and
(vii) the delivery date of the submarines; and
(c) the recent concerns about the performance and few opportunities for Australian firms on the Future Frigates; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) respond to the questions raised about the replacement submarine contract;
(b) ensure that all Australian naval shipbuilding contracts maximize Australian workforce participation with public, transparent and audited mandatory minimum content requirements; and
(c) ensure that all naval procurement is fit for purpose, value for money and delivered in a timely way.
Mr Laming to move:
That this House:
(1) notes the recent Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal recommendation to create a new class of medals and clasps which recognise the loss suffered by the families of Australian Defence Force personnel killed or seriously wounded as a result of their service;
(2) acknowledges the advocacy role taken by former SAS serviceman Kerry Danes and his wife Kay Danes;
(3) thanks the veterans and the families of veterans that made submissions to the tribunal; and
(4) urges the Government to complete the consultation process as soon as practicable and ensure that the proposed recognition be applied to all military service on behalf of this nation.
Ms L. M. Chesters to move:
That this House:
(1) notes:
(a) the actions of the Myanmar military was a direct attack on Myanmar's democratic transition;
(b) that Australia stands in solidarity with the people of Myanmar and with Myanmar communities in Australia; and
(c) our international partners have taken strong actions in opposition to the Myanmar military coup;
(2) condemns the Myanmar military for:
(a) removing a democratically elected government and violently cracking down against peaceful protests resulting in thousands of civilian deaths; and
(b) the sustained detention of thousands of political and civil society leaders in Myanmar, including Australian Sean Turnell; and
(3) calls on:
(a) the Myanmar military to immediately relinquish the power they have seized and release the activists and officials they have detained; and
(b) the Australian Government to implement targeted sanctions against the Tatmadaw and linked entities.
Mr Christensen to present a Bill for an Act about social media services, and for related purposes. (Social Media (Protecting Australians from Censorship) Bill 2022)
Mr Bandt to present a Bill for an Act to impose a moratorium on new coal, gas and oil projects, and for related purposes. (Moratorium on New Coal, Gas and Oil Bill 2022)
Mr Wilkie to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes. (Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Cleaning up Political Donations) Bill 2022)
Mr Katter to move:
That this House notes that the Member for Kennedy and the Member for Clark call on the Government to provide for sovereign fuel security in Australia during the transition to reliance on renewable energy and net-zero carbon emissions, including by ensuring:
(1) a ban on Australian oil exports;
(2) Australian processing, by Australian owned and operated companies, of Australian oil;
(3) Australian petroleum contains a minimum of 33 per cent renewables (algae and ethanol inter alia), by 2027;
(4) Australian manufacture, by Australian owned and operated companies, of drop-in fuel using waste materials, with a targeted supply of a minimum of 33 per cent of the Australian fuel diesel market by 2027;
(5) Australia stockpile a minimum of six months supply of fuels, oils and lubricants, noting that:
(a) these materials are manufactured in Australia from Australian oil; and
(b) where this is not possible, that imports be restricted to those materials genuinely unable to be manufactured in Australia from Australian oil;
(6) any investment in industrial facilities to meet the requirements of this motion be limited to the genuine need for fuel security, with the object that Australian manufacturers achieve 100 per cent energy supply from renewable energy and net-zero carbon emissions; and
(7) Australian manufacture of electric vehicles, and their component parts including battery production, with a target of 100 per cent of all local, state and federal, government vehicles and buses, in metropolitan areas being Australian made by 2035.
Federation Chamber
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) took the chair at 16:00.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ) took the chair at 16:00.
CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS
Secret Harbour Surf Life Saving Club
Secret Harbour Dockers Cricket Club
Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (16:00): I want to congratulate the Secret Harbour Surf Life Saving Club on celebrating its 40th anniversary. With Perth sweating through one of its hottest summers on record, I, alongside many others in my electorate of Brand, have flocked to our beautiful beaches. The Secret Harbour Surf Life Saving Club has done a remarkable job keeping us all safe. The club performs over 6,000 patrols and 300 rescues annually. As well as monitoring approximately 35 kilometres of the Rockingham coastline, the club patrols Penguin Island and Point Peron during the very busy and very hectic abalone season, ensuring the safety of those hunting for that exotic treasure.
I'm proud to say that the club was recognised in the 2021 Surf Life Saving WA Awards of Excellence, with Garry Williams winning Trainer of the Year and Nicholas Graydon winning Youth Lifesaver of the Year. While I would love to congratulate these exemplary members in person at the club's celebration of its 40th anniversary on 19 February, I, unfortunately, cannot attend due to quarantine and isolation requirements on my return home, but I sincerely hope everyone has a brilliant time and quite rightly celebrates this club's great success. The club is always looking for new members and volunteers. I encourage everyone to get involved and show their support.
Another club in Brand that's making me incredibly proud is the Secret Harbour Dockers Cricket Club. This weekend they join cricket clubs around Australia in hosting a Pink Stumps Day to raise money for the McGrath Foundation. The day will start with a warm-up game between the Secret Harbour men's team and the Wanachote Wanderers, which is a team made up of players from clubs around Perth who come together a few times a year to play Peel based teams and raise funds for cancer research. I guess it's good that a few people get south of the river sometimes. The Secret Harbour Dockers will then take on the Warnbro Swans in the T20 ladies game.
Both teams will play for the inaugural Madeleine King MP Trophy. It will become an annual competition between the two neighbouring clubs. I love cricket enormously, so I am enormously grateful to have a trophy in my name for these two great clubs to compete for. I really wish I could be there this weekend, but I will be in Canberra. If you livestream it, maybe I will get to watch it back here. Good luck to both teams. I can't wait to see next year's game.
Secret Harbour Football Club player and breast cancer survivor Amy Duckworth will present the trophy to the winning team. Amy, it's really disappointing that I won't be there with you. Hopefully, next year I can get along and take part in the fun, but I can't promise to bowl or bat, because I just like watching.
I thank Tennelle O'Neill, Michael McIlwaine, David Drew and Gavin McDonnell from the Dockers and David Cowan and Andy Lawler from the Warnbro cricket club for organising this really special day. I hope you have a great time, hit a few sixes and have a great deal of fun.
Boosting Female Founders Initiative
Reid Electorate: Sporting Facilities
Dr MARTIN (Reid) (16:03): The government is busy delivering in my electorate of Reid. Over the past months I have been in the community seeing positive impacts of our plan. We have been helping local female business leaders take on the world and have been upgrading major sporting facilities for families, players and fans of the Wests Tigers.
Silverwater is just west of Sydney Olympic Park. It is home to some of Australia's leading manufacturers. I recently had the pleasure of meeting a businesswoman based in Silverwater who has been backed by the government's Boosting Female Founders Initiative. Aditi Mamtani is the founder and CEO of ARETE Labs. Her innovative business assists with the personal-care products industry, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals as well as pet care and home care. Her company helps clients develop and market their products. With $229,000 from the Boosting Female Founders Initiative, Aditi plans to help local start-ups and small- to medium-sized businesses enter the market. To do that her company will create a pilot facility that produces trial-sized products for her clients. This will reduce the cost of taking full-sized products to market and it's a great way to foster the growth of local Australian businesses—backed by the Morrison government.
Not far down the road is Planet Protector Packaging, a company doing great things for manufacturing, for the environment and for farmers—the trifecta. I recently joined Senator the Hon. Marise Payne, our Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women, on a tour of their factory in Silverwater. I had the pleasure of meeting founder and CEO, Joanne Howarth, and her team. Joanne's company has developed a packaging product called Woolpack, made from sheep wool waste. Woolpack is a sustainable alternative to polystyrene packaging used in cold supply chains. Since 2016 Joanne's company has saved over 4,000 tonnes of waste wool from landfills and generated $7.5 million in new revenue for sheep farmers. With $400,000 from the Boosting Female Founders Initiative, Joanne plans to expand Planet Protector Packaging to South Australia and bring Woolpack to the wine industry. This move will bring her products to Australia's export market, also backed by the Morrison government.
But we're not just backing female trailblazers; we're also helping local sporting groups, such as Wests Tigers, with the Concord Oval development on way. Recently I visited Concord Oval, which is on its way, and the centre of excellence, which will be a wonderful facility for elite athletes. So there are lots of great things happening in Reid, all because of the Morrison government.
Cooper Electorate: COVID-19
Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (16:06): I rise to inform the House about some of the experiences of my constituents over the past months and weeks. There are some 25 million Australians—25 million people who go to school, work and live out their old age; 25 million people who have or will pay tax, contribute to their community and look after those around them—and there are some 25 million stories over the past weeks of people who haven't been able to find rapid antigen tests or who have had to overcome major obstacles to access a booster shot. In these 25 million stories there are some recurring themes. There are those who drove from pharmacy to pharmacy looking for a rapid antigen test amongst the deadly and dangerous shortage. There are the households who got struck down with COVID, and friends and family dropped supermarket bags at their doorsteps—or not. There are those who were sick but had to hesitate before going to hospital, knowing the system was already groaning and fatigued. There were those who had to call in sick to work, creating staff shortages and leading to empty supermarket shelves.
I want to tell you about some of the experiences my constituents told me about. A lovely man wrote to me about his experience with his 94-year-old grandmother in an aged-care facility in Northcote. The 94-year-old is very much alive. She is very vibrant. She has friendships with those around her. She looks forward to visitors. She looks forward to Christmas. She smiles with her eyes, wears cardigans and has the short curly grey hairstyle that represents grandmas right around Australia. The woman caught COVID in 2020, while 12 of her fellow residents sadly passed away in the outbreak. The 94-year-old has good fortune on her shoulder, and her family made sure she was vaccinated in early December at a local GP, as the aged-care facility could not confirm when any of the residents would have their booster. Luckily, she's healthy for her age and has a supportive village of advocates around her but, unluckily, her aged-care facility had another COVID outbreak a few weeks ago. As of mid-January, only 60 per cent of residents had received their booster vaccine. This is as omicron raged and ripped through aged-care facilities right across the nation. While omicron put her home into lockdown, she didn't have a shower for three days, despite asking for one. Her family had to purchase an air purifier for her room, as the facility had not been resourced by the government to improve ventilation. Her family told me she was stressed, lonely and struggling with her mental health.
This is one story of 25 million. The aged-care system is in crisis, and there are hundreds of thousands of stories that provide evidence to anyone who cares to listen. (Time expired)
Fairfax Electorate: Homelessness
Mr TED O'BRIEN (Fairfax) (16:09): It was a Monday morning, 9 September 2019. He was found dead at the back of the Maroochy Neighbourhood Centre in Maroochydore. He had been sleeping in his sleeping bag. He was attacked and killed, at 53 years of age. He was homeless, and his name was David Collin. Last Friday night I had the enormous honour of visiting what's referred to as a 'sleep bus', which was parked at Thrive on Aerodrome Road in Maroochydore. That bus provides safety and shelter to those who are homeless. In many ways I see that sleep bus as the legacy of David Collin.
I see it as a legacy because Michael Henning and Mark Ellis, of the Maroochy Neighbourhood Centre, were so moved by what had happened on that tragic night that they decided to raise money from the community. They needed $100,000 to procure a sleep bus, which of course founder Simon Rowe created only a handful of years ago and which has changed the landscape for many who are homeless. Well, they raised $100,000. Indeed, they raised $200,000.
A sleep bus provides safety and shelter for up to 20 people a night—a temporary home. This is an example of not just a community coming together but an entrepreneur who is solving a problem of society, and not with government funding. This is not a government idea; this is an individual who has identified a problem and created an innovative solution. We have a community in Queensland, around Maroochydore and now way beyond, putting their hand up and coming to the fore, and I say thank you to each and every one. (Time expired)
Solomon Electorate: Travel Industry
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:12): COVID has been a complex challenge not just here in Australia but around the world, leaving few aspects of our lives untouched. Small and medium-sized businesses continue to be impacted, including in my electorate of Solomon—Darwin and Palmerston—in the Top End. Every member of this place will have heard stories of their local businesses struggling to survive, some even going to the wall. One industry that has been hit particularly hard is that of travel agents.
The impact of COVID on the travel industry was really brought home to me recently by a Darwin local. I was contacted by Cola Maurirere, the general manager of itravel in Darwin. Cola is passionate about helping people to travel, and it was this passion that got her into the travel industry and led her to establish her own business. But, since 2020, when the pandemic hit, Cola has gone for great lengths of time without any income at all. She has seen her projected earnings from travel bookings disappear entirely, and, despite refocusing her business to cater to domestic travel to a greater extent than before, little has improved. This of course has been a result of the lockdowns of the big markets that want to come up to the Northern Territory.
Cola says that running her business during the COVID pandemic has been like a roller-coaster, and I'm sure all honourable members can recognise that in their own jurisdictions as well. There have been glimmers of hope and a sense of normality returning, with people starting to book holidays once more, but the plans of so many would-be travellers have been disrupted by new variants of COVID and new waves of illness, restrictions and border closures. Cola tells me that, from her vantage point, the current state of the travel industry is no better than it was at the worst of the pandemic, because the public have lost their confidence in booking a holiday without any disruptions.
The Australian Federation of Travel Agents says that the industry will not survive without a travel sector skills retention-and-recovery package from the federal government. So I call on those opposite to have a look at the package that's been suggested and to take steps to support this industry. After all, JobKeeper did help for a while, but in my view it was withdrawn much too early. It would have been better if it were continued and better targeted: instead of going to those who didn't need it, it should've gone to those who did.
Parkes Electorate: Employment
Mr COULTON (Parkes) (16:15): I'd like to speak about the air of optimism that's across the Parkes electorate at the moment. That's obvious, following the good seasons and the fact that the Darling River is now in flood—what I might say is a beneficial flood that's now heading towards Wilcannia and Menindee—with the lakes full and the rivers flowing. But apart from that, and despite the difficulties that our businesses and communities have had with the pandemic, they have a belief in a brighter future. Following some of the programs that we put in as a government, the first cohort of students in the Dubbo Murray Darling Medical School started the week before last. One hundred per cent of those students are regional students who will stay, do their degrees, do their specialty and continue to work.
I met with some interns at the Dubbo hospital who are planning a career in rural medicine—largely, those opportunities are because when I was minister we actually doubled the number of training places for junior doctors. We now have a graduated Medicare rebate, so the more remote the community is that you serve the higher the rebates you get for bulk-billing.
The apprenticeship program has put an extra 160 apprentices across my electorate to fill some of the gaps. We have massive skills shortages from all the professions through the trades right down to unskilled work, and there are endless opportunities.
At Dubbo senior college last year over 70 Aboriginal students completed year 12 and did the HSC. A decade ago that would have been seven. We're keeping those young people at school and opening up opportunities, whether it's employment or further education. Some of those younger people are actually joining the military. We're at a point where unemployment in my electorate is below the national average. Indeed, pre-pandemic—and we're nearly back there now—unemployment in Dubbo was just a fraction over two per cent.
Moree now has more high-vis people working there than people in RM Williams boots with the Inland Rail. There are 500 people at the moment working in the Moree district and building that railway line, with construction about to commence after design in the Narrabri-to-Narromine section. Broken Hill is expecting up to 10,000 more jobs over the next decade, mining things like cobalt, magnetite and gold. Rare earths are being mined at Toongi to meet the needs of a vastly-evolving electronic world.
I hear a lot about gloom and doom coming from this place— (Time expired)
Western Australia: Bushfires
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (16:18): Summer brings out the best in Australia and the best of Australians. We enjoy our beaches and the protection that surf lifesavers provide us. In my electorate of Perth, the fringe festival makes the city come alive. We share in the traditions of Christmas and remind ourselves of the importance of compassion. Our barbecues get their once-a-year proper clean and, after a long holiday, children go back to school.
Summer in Australia also means bushfires. This summer was no different. Western Australia has had three major heatwaves this summer, topping 40 degrees each time, and over the last week there have been bushfires raging throughout Western Australia, with climate change making these events more severe, more intense and more common.
This has been a terrifying time for the communities in the Wheatbelt, the south-west, the Great Southern and even for communities in Perth and the metropolitan area around Rockingham. There were 60,000 hectares burnt, productive farmland was lost, phone lines are down, communities have been disconnected and, sadly, the homes of six families are gone. Every Western Australian, including you, Deputy Speaker Irons, sends their support to those who have been affected by these awful bushfires at this time. They have meant sleepless nights for communities around Bridgetown, Corrigin, Denmark and so many of the towns that feed not just Western Australia and Australia but the world.
We've got native bushland that will take years to recover, damage that is still being assessed and investigations into the cause of some of these awful fires. Fortunately, we have seen that the Bridgetown threat has been downgraded in the last day, but there are still threats remaining. I note the Minister for Emergency Services, Stephen Dawson, has warned there may be more fires later this week.
I want to thank emergency services staff and volunteers from across Western Australia for their efforts. There were some 1,300 people out there, facing danger to protect others, battling fires in 42 degrees and more. I know that every member of this place is grateful for the efforts of our first responders, our emergency services and the communities who do their bit in the middle of the crisis, whatever it takes, just to help one another.
I want to acknowledge in this place that we've had a lot of state rivalries over the last few years, and that has probably intensified, but I do want to acknowledge in particular the efforts of people from New South Wales who came to help battle these fires. Thirty-six professionals from the New South Wales Rural Fire Service, with practically no notice, jumped on a plane and flew to Western Australia to battle fires and to help save the homes and communities of Western Australians. To them I say thank you.
Katie Rose Cottage Hospice
Sunshine Butterflies
Mr LLEW O'BRIEN (Wide Bay—Deputy Speaker) (16:21): If the measure of a community is how it treats its sick, its disabled and those at end of life then Noosa should be commended. It has two unique places that are treasured safe havens for those that are ignored or worse in less fortunate corners of the world. Sunshine Butterflies is a disability support charity, and Katie Rose hospice cares for people navigating their final phase of life. They are community driven not-for-profits and valued by the Noosa community, who donate to them regularly, fundraise for them and volunteer for them.
When it comes to government support, none are more deserving. That's why the Morrison-Joyce government announced $1.5 million to extend Katie Rose Cottage Hospice so that more terminally ill people and their families navigating the final stages of life can be supported. Simply put, Katie Rose is where families can truly say goodbye to their loved ones. It's where the dying share their final moments with family and friends in a comfortable home environment with dedicated, professional and compassionate care. The difference is that the dying mother at Katie Rose can watch a child playing around her, swimming in the pool and exploring the garden rather than be alone in a cold hospital room. A dying father can eat a home-cooked meal and share a room with his wife on his final night. The bereaved whom Katie Rose Cottage support could not speak more highly of it, because they have been helped during the most challenging time of their lives. Our commitment to Katie Rose hospice will mean that 20 further people from the Sunshine Coast area approaching end of life can access the level and type of care they need for their final months.
While Katie Rose cares for the dying and their families, Sunshine Butterflies changes the lives of individuals with disabilities and their families. The vibrant, home based Our Backyard at Cooroibah will now feature an accessible playground, cafe and stage roof over an accessible stage with the help of a $135,000 grant from the Morrison-Joyce government. It's a place that delights children of all ages with music, colour and movement. There are chooks, ponies and peacocks, and now they will have a playground from which no child, no matter their disability, will be excluded.
To Carol Raye, Leanne Walsh and your teams: you have shown what a community that cares can achieve with dedication and perseverance. I extend my heartfelt thanks to both of those people for doing what they do in their wonderful establishments.
Lunar New Year
Religious Discrimination Bill 2021
Mr GILES (Scullin) (16:24): Many hundreds of thousands of Australians have just celebrated the Lunar New Year. It is celebrated by many, of course, as Chinese New Year and by many Vietnamese Australians as Tet. They've welcomed in the Year of the Tiger. I want to wish all who celebrated a safe, prosperous and hopeful year ahead.
Of course, the tiger is associated with valour, and I note its strength in exorcising evil—something I think all of us need to lean on as we work our way through the challenges of this year. For many, this year's celebrations have been different, as they were last year and the year before. I think about those who've been unable to travel and join with family, which is such an important part of this occasion, or unable even to gather together. I know that I myself was not able to join in the celebrations with the Whittlesea Chinese Association as I ordinarily would—I send all my thoughts to Regina Huning, the president, and all the members of that group—or even be part of the gatherings that are normally such a highlight of Melbourne's Chinatown. I want to say that everything we can do to enable these gatherings to come together is something that we should all work towards as we recognise the celebrations that have taken place—the passing of red envelopes and other matters.
As the representative of a very diverse community and as Labor's shadow minister for multicultural affairs, I have also been reflecting on remarks made by the Prime Minister in question time today, when he sought to link support for multiculturalism in this country to support for his bill to deal with issues relating to discrimination on the basis of religion. These remarks were unworthy, irresponsible and wrong in two respects. Firstly, neither he nor any of us should presume to speak for the enormous diversity that is multicultural and, indeed, multifaith Australian. Secondly, he shouldn't mislead the parliament as to the views expressed by multicultural organisations on this matter. Those organisations that submitted to the parliamentary inquiries, such as FECCA, the Hindu Council of Australia, the Buddhist Council of New South Wales and the Diversity Council Australia, urged parliamentarians not to support the bills in their current form.
So, for once, the Prime Minister should listen and, for once, he should lead. In dealing with these difficult and important issues, he should take responsibility for trying to bring Australians together, respect their viewpoints and not seek to divide.
Page Electorate: Surf Lifesaving
Irwin, Ms Janet
Page Electorate: Australia Day Awards
Mr HOGAN (Page—Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Minister for Local Government) (16:27): I would like to acknowledge five young men who became heroes on Christmas Eve. Fifteen-year-old Charlie Ticknor, 14-year-olds Oliver Arragon and Sol Novak, 12-year-old Max McGillivray and 16-year-old Ned Barany were at Evans Head main beach. They had just finished a training session with World Surf League championship qualifier Callum Robson. Two six-year-old boys were playing in the surf when they were suddenly knocked off their bodyboards and became stuck in a rip that was rapidly sweeping them out to sea. The boys saw this happen and immediately headed out to help them. They paddled for over 150 metres to get to them. Oliver and Ned got to the boys first and, with Charlie's help, got them onto the front of their surfboards. Max and Sol then helped the boys get them back into shore as, with the extra weight on their boards, they didn't have much flotation.
They successfully navigated the rip and got the kids back onshore. The lifeguard on duty, Plenko, then also helped the kids and made sure they were all okay. Charlie has just completed his Bronze Medallion and is the newest recruit at the Evans Head surf lifesaving club. Congratulations, boys, and thank you for what you did.
I'd like to recognise a great young woman in my community who was this year's ABC Heywire winner. Janet Irwin is from Grafton and she loves to paint. Her passion for art began in grade 1, when she won first prize at the Grafton Show. Janet has Sotos syndrome, a rare genetic disorder. She says art makes her happy because it helps her deal with some of the challenges she faces. Janet says her disability makes her more creative in her artwork, because she can get very focused on certain things. She attends McAuley Catholic College in Grafton and worked with her English teacher, Maria Rouse, to write her story about her art and painting and how it has helped her deal with the challenges around her disability. Janet and the school's leader of additional needs, Meg Bindon, produced an accompanying video for the entry. Congratulations, Janet. You are an inspiration to us all.
I'd like to congratulate and acknowledge members of my electorate who received Australia Day awards in the Ballina Shire Council area. Citizen of the year was Maria Matthes for her tireless dedication to protecting Ballina's koala population. Veronica Silver jointly received the Sporting Achievement Award for her dedication in fundraising for the Alstonville Water Polo Club for the last 20 years. The Arts/Cultural Award went to the Ballina and District Historical Society. The museum opened to the public in October 2021 and has been developed solely by the volunteers. And the Senior Citizen of the Year went to Barry Fiedler. I know Barry very well; he volunteers for numerous local community organisations. This includes 60 years with the Pearces Creek Hall and seven years with the Alstonville Tibouchina Day Club. Congratulations, Barry.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): Order! I understand it is the wish of the Federation Chamber for constituency statements to continue for a further 30 minutes.
Mead, Sister Janet
Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (16:30): On 26 January, the electorate of Adelaide and, indeed, our nation lost a true legend and an angel: Sister Janet Mead passed away, leaving an impressive legacy.
She was born in Adelaide in 1938 and entered the Sisters of Mercy convent at the age of 17. After studying piano at the Adelaide conservatorium, she formed a rock band. In the 1970s, her famous rock masses at St Aloysius College, where she taught, caught the attention of record producers. Members may well remember the result: her 1974 rock version of The Lord's Prayer sold more than two million copies worldwide. Sister Janet was the first Australian artist to have a gold record in the US and was even nominated for a Grammy award, but lost out to Elvis Presley.
While music was one way she used to spread her faith, her life remained firmly dedicated to helping the homeless, the disadvantaged and those who were less privileged. She was an activist in every respect. She protested against the Vietnam War; she was outspoken when it came to injustices, including welfare cuts; she supported the stevedores during the waterfront dispute; and she fought Aboriginal disadvantage, unfair treatment of refugees—the list goes on and on. In 1985 she established the Adelaide Day Centre for Homeless Persons in the middle of the city, which today continues to support the homeless and anyone needing support through a range of vital services. I had the enormous pleasure of seeing her contributions personally through my many visits to the centre, especially during the pandemic. Sister Janet and others at the centre helped people, and the centre became a refuge for so many in need.
Sister Janet was, very deservedly, named 2004 South Australian of the Year in recognition of her work in caring for the homeless. But I believe it was the spirit in which she lived her life that will be her most lasting legacy. Most famously, she said: 'I'm a firm believer in protest songs. I'm a firm believer, also, in protest. When things aren't right, we have the right to sing about them and to speak about them.'
Rest in peace, Sister Janet Mead; you will be sorely missed in Adelaide. I, and all of us, thank her personally for everything she has done for those who are less privileged than we are. Her doors were always open to the homeless—she picked people up from the streets, assisted them, helped them and gave them some dignity. She was a true, true saint. Sister Janet Mead and her work will be remembered through the Adelaide day centre and all those involved in it. I'm very sad that I won't be able to attend the funeral service on Saturday, but she will be remembered forever and a day. (Time expired)
Riverina Electorate: Bland Shire Council
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina) (16:33): Bland, Dull and Boring—I'm not passing reflections on anybody in this chamber; I'm talking about three local government areas. Bland Shire is in my electorate and its centrepiece is West Wyalong. It has partnered up with Dull in Scotland and Boring in Oregon to form the League of Extraordinary Communities, and extraordinary communities they are.
Indeed, the recently re-elected Mayor of Bland Shire, Brian Monaghan, made the comment to me, since parliament last sat, that he has never seen the amount of funding and the emphasis going to local government that he has in recent times. He put a time frame of 30 years on it, saying, 'We haven't seen this sort of commitment to local governments and local councils in all of my time in that important first phase of government.' Bland Shire has been the recipient of $6.9 million under the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure program. It is second only to Wagga Wagga, which received $9.2 million of the $54.8 million that has gone to the 12 councils within the Riverina electorate. The reason Bland Shire has received that amount of money through this particular program is its extensive road network, much of which is dirt and some of which has been sealed, but of course that requires upgrading and constant maintenance. I pay credit to the West Wyalong council—to Ray Smith, the general manager there—and to Councillor Monaghan, for the commitment they have made to West Wyalong Airport, getting a new hangar, as well as the tennis club for a modification and so many other projects, including raising and widening of the Ungarie School bridge, the Mackrell Street bridge, over—there you go!—Humbug Creek. Again, I'm not reflecting on anybody in this chamber. It's just one of the interesting names that crop up in our local government areas and certainly in Australian communities right across the country!
I know that the recent elections within New South Wales in local government have brought about some change. I commend all those councillors who put their names up for election in that process. I've got six new mayors of the 12 councils. I commend David McCann OAM of Coolamon, Charlie Sheahan of the Cootamundra Gundagai Regional Council, Margaret Roles of Hilltops Regional Council, Greg Verdon of Lockhart Shire, Dallas Tout of Wagga Wagga City and Craig Bembrick of Weddin Shire in Grenfell for being new mayors. They've got big roles to play and they will all enjoy the benefits of that LRCI funding.
Kingston Electorate: Hincks, Ms Louise
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (16:36): While most of South Australia was dealing with a summer plagued with COVID-19, it was business as usual on many fronts when it came to natural disasters in South Australia, and volunteer emergency service personnel continued to do their jobs in attending to these natural disasters. On Monday 10 January a devastating fire raged through the community near Lucindale, burning through 16,800 hectares of land. The devastation that this fire left in its path affected more than 100 homes, but it was the loss of the life of a long-serving Country Fire Service volunteer and member of the Happy Valley CFS Brigade that brought the state to a standstill. Louise Hincks is a name that will forever be engraved in the hearts and minds of my community as well as communities all around South Australia.
This tragedy occurred on a day of hot and windy extreme fire danger conditions, when temperatures soared to nearly 40 degrees. Louise, a volunteer with the CFS, selflessly put her community before herself, taking up the call for help. This wasn't in her home community. She'd travelled hundreds of kilometres to volunteer her skills to protect others in a community some distance away. During this dangerous time, she lost her life in the line of duty.
There has been a public outpouring of grief over the loss of Louise, including from people like Tanya, who volunteered with her for seven years and described her as 'the sweetest, kindest selfless soul, utterly dedicated to the CFS and her community'. Katelyn said of Louise: 'I just hope one day I can touch as many lives as you did in the short time you were here. You are going to be missed.' Simone captured the incredible impact Louise had, saying, 'She was a fierce supporter and a wonderful role model for women in firefighting across the emergency services, highlighted by her beaming pride to see her daughters join as cadets.' I was really pleased to see that her daughter Alice won Happy Valley's 2021 CFS Cadet of the Year, that she was recognised. It was a privilege to witness this. It is an example of the role model that Louise was.
Louise had a proud history of volunteering with the CFS. There are not many words to describe the type of courage, the type of bravery, that had to be displayed that day. But Louise, you are a hero in every sense of the word. You will forever be a hero. Vale Louise Hincks. (Time expired)
South Australia: Floods
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:39): I'm very mindful of the member for Kingston's comments there about the loss of the life of a wonderful volunteer. It just reminds us of what an amazing place Australia is, because in another part of South Australia we've been dealing with floods—in my electorate, I must say, and on my own farm. The most notable of course in the national eye has been the cutting-off of the Stuart Highway for 14 days or more. I'm very grateful to the federal government, to Bridget McKenzie, who got the wheels moving to get those Spartan aircraft in from the RAAF to organise food airlifts through to Cooper Pedy. Coober Pedy is the supply station for Oodnadatta, William Creek, Cadney Park and Marla, and that place was basically running out of food. The trucks started rolling through the floodwaters about 36 hours ago, and four-wheel drives with high clearance will be allowed through tonight.
It's been a very testing period. The dirt roads in the outback are also cut off. The Strzelecki, Oodnadatta and Birdsville tracks have all been cut off, but they will progressively open up and we'll get the works open. It's one of those testing times. It's a very true thing to say that there's more money in mud than dust; it will have a benefit. The national railway, of course, has been cut in 18 spots east of Kingoonya, and it's expected to take weeks to repair.
Centred mainly over Eyre Peninsula, where I come from, we had a rain cell sit on top of us for about four days. My own farm experienced 240 mils of rain over those three days, 180 mils on the first night. One of my neighbours has had 320 mils. Kimba seemed to be the epicentre of the storm; that's where I live. There are access roads to my farm that are over a metre deep, just gouged out by the force of the rain. There are two paddocks on my farm that would hold sheep at the moment, but the fences are gone. There's silt on roads. There's a lot of damage. We estimate that, in the Kimba council alone, there's probably $5 million worth, and that's an area of a thousand people. There are eight councils involved. As I said, Kimba is the worst, but councils like Franklin Harbour, Cleve, Elliston and Lower Eyre Peninsula all have significant damage as well.
I'm very pleased that the state government has now put in a bid for financial assistance under the national disaster relief arrangements, and that was approved today by the minister, Bridget McKenzie, who has been fantastic throughout this ordeal. So councils will now have the confidence to go forward, knowing they have the bankroll to deal with the issues in front of them—because we need to rebuild the roads not just for general access; in just a few weeks, farmers will be trying to get their seeding equipment up and down those roads and in and out of paddocks, and then, of course, along comes harvest. It's been a difficult time, but everybody's hanging in there—no loss of life. (Time expired)
COVID-19: Aged Care
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (16:42): If there were any doubt about the dismissive and supercilious attitude of the Morrison government to the crisis in aged care, it was on full display in question time today—dismissive of deaths from COVID; dismissive of the bungled vaccine rollout to aged-care residents and staff. There have been 622 residents of aged-care facilities who have died from COVID this year, and we're only in early February. As at Friday, almost 12,000 aged-care residents and workers were infected with COVID at more than 1,100 facilities. Currently, tens of thousands of residents are still waiting for a booster, and up to a quarter of shifts are going unfilled. And that's the experience in my electorate of Blair, where aged-care providers are facing issues with PPE and rapid antigen tests and COVID costs.
I'll give you one example, an aged-care provider in Rosewood, a country town of 3,000 people in rural Ipswich. Cabanda Care is a wonderful community-run facility. There are 71 residential aged-care beds, 52 independent-living units and 140 staff providing tremendous care in the facility and throughout the community. They've been hit by rising COVID costs, and of course COVID among staff and residents, exacerbated by the failure of this government in relation to PPE and RATS. The COVID costs are crippling them. I do acknowledge Minister Hunt's office; we've reached out to him seeking urgent assistance for this small community-run facility, which of course has had to buy, at great cost, essential PPE and RATs to meet daily requirements. I want to commend the chair of Cabanda Care, Lyall McEwin. In his report to the AGM in October 2021, he talks about the problems of the vaccination program and criticises the Morrison government, calling the vaccine program as it impacts Cabanda 'spasmodic'. The centre has been able to secure funding for additional beds and has been hamstrung by the government's inadequate funding classification system. Unlike other classification models in the health department and other government departments, this funding is based on local government. This highlights the fact that we have large towns that are classified as No. 1, for rating purposes, for subsidies and supplements. Ipswich is rated No. 2 and Rosewood, because it's in Ipswich, is rated No. 2. It should be rated No. 4, like Gatton and Kingaroy, or No. 5, like Boonah, Laidley, Kalbar and Harrisville.
I urge the government to look at the classification system that would help places like Cabanda, because Cabanda Care is the biggest employer in the country town of Rosewood in rural Ipswich. I urge the government to look at equity of classification systems, to make it fairer for organisations like Cabanda Care and to treat seriously the aged-care crisis we have. It's not just Cabanda Care; it's other aged-care providers in my electorate that are doing it tough, and the government's response in question time today shows tremendous arrogance. They should look at themselves again. (Time expired)
Higgins Electorate: Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park
Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (16:45): If the pandemic has taught us one thing, it's that we are using and appreciating facilities in our local neighbourhoods more now than ever before. With that, we as a government are cognisant of the need to invest more in our communities. This includes improving our local sporting amenities that help keep us safe and connected. Malvern East is in my electorate and soon to be home of the biggest-ever investment in sporting infrastructure, with the highly anticipated Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park redevelopment finally underway.
I was proud to attend the site of the new development with the mayor of the City of Stonnington, Councillor Jami Klisaris; the CEO, Jacqui Weatherill; and the president of the Stonnington City Netball Association, Kate Campbell, for the official sod turning to mark the momentous occasion. We did throw dirt in the air and the cameraman asked us to throw it at their camera! So we have a cameraman covered with dirt as a result, but hopefully the camera is okay. This marks the commencement of works made possible by $4 million in the federal government contribution, helping turn this dream in my community into a reality.
As a mother of four kids who have all played sport locally, I understand the importance of these new courts for our community. This is particularly because there are a record number of women playing sport in Higgins. Recent data shows that of 2,785 registered netball players living in Higgins, 1,656 are forced to play outside their local area due to a significant lack of suitable facilities. I have lived that myself. Clubs, including the Malvern Netball Club, Sacre Coeur Netball Club and other local schools in Higgins, are travelling far to participate in community sport.
The Morrison government is proud of the huge intake in women's participation in sport, which has increased substantially in the past decade. But with this growth in female participation comes a need for new, modern, safe and inclusive sporting facilities to meet the demand. The Percy Treyvaud Memorial Park will be home to four indoor sports courts for basketball and netball, spectator seating for each court, scorer and team benches, new offices, accessible change rooms and a first-aid room. Further, the local Chadstone Bowls Club will also get a stunning new eight-rink synthetic bowling green and lighting for night-time bowling.
The Morrison government is transforming a community asset, nearing the end of its useful life, into a community facility that's contemporary and which will be used and enjoyed by so many clubs. I'm proud of this investment in Higgins and look forward to meeting the next Ash Barty on the tennis courts in early 2024, when they come online. This is a good day for sports in Higgins.
McEwen Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr ROB MITCHELL (McEwen—Second Deputy Speaker) (16:48): Consistency is important in government, and this government has been very consistent—consistent in misleading the people of our communities. Over nine long years of this deceit-filled, scandal-ridden Liberal-National government, our electorate of McEwen has been misled by a coalition that cares more about announcements than they care about community. For too long, the Lib-Nat government has neglected Melbourne's north. They have failed to follow through on every single commitment they have made for the people of McEwen—always. They give false promises through press releases, and then they move on.
After refusing to commit to the Wallan interchange at the last election, they announced with great fanfare in August 2020 that $50 million would be provided for the installation of two south-facing freeway entry and exit ramps from the Hume Highway to Watson Street, Wallan. This was made under the now infamous and discredited Urban Congestion Fund or the 'car park rorts scheme'. The upgrade was called for by Labor, the Mitchell Shire and community groups as urgent, to ensure the safety of our residents and to ease the appalling traffic times experienced by people in our region. The interchange is desperately needed now. Peak-hour traffic is banking up on the Hume Highway from the current Wallan exit, exposing motorists to dangerous cars and trucks, which fly by them at 110 kilometres per hour. It is a serious accident waiting to happen, but the government have never delivered on this promise. In fact, 18 months from their most recent announcement, they are yet to answer to the community on the status of this project. The government claim that the project is in planning but are yet to provide any details. They refuse to be honest with the Australian people.
The Morrison government made the announcement, sold the community a pup and, as usual, skipped town. They're like the monorail salesman from The Simpsons the way they act—they're all talk and there's no follow through. Our community cannot afford to continue with a government that never delivers. As I said, this government is being consistent—every promise made, every promise broken.
Over the break I was proud to announce the Labor government will invest $150 million towards McEwen's much-needed infrastructure with our commitment to build the Camerons Lane interchange at Beveridge. The investment will transform Melbourne's north. It will unlock the jobs, the education and community building we need. It's all about unlocking the economic potential of our region. We know this interchange is what's needed to support housing growth and jobs in sectors like education and health.
McEwen needs a government that doesn't just make announcements but follows through with them. Only an Albanese Labor government would be willing to invest in the future of our community and provide infrastructure that our electorate needs in order to flourish. We need a government that's on our side, a government that's here for us.
Gippsland Lakes
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland) (16:51): I rise to raise my concerns in relation to the management of the iconic Gippsland Lakes, which are a jewel in the Gippsland tourism crown. The Gippsland Lakes are a complex coastal lagoon system which has been impacted very heavily since European settlement with the establishment of towns, industry and primary production and the creation of an artificial entrance at Lakes Entrance itself, so it's a dynamic system which is constantly changing. I believe this generation has an obligation to protect and enhance such a natural national treasure to ensure future generations can enjoy Gippsland Lakes and its catchment.
I have grown up fishing, swimming and boating on Gippsland Lakes, and actually reported on the state of the Gippsland Lakes campaign in the 1980s as a journalist at the Gippsland Times, so I'm concerned with the lack of state government commitment to care for Gippsland Lakes and its catchment. In recent years we've seen dolphin deaths, we have seen high inflows associated with recent flooding and we've seen the impact that's had with nutrients affecting water quality. Now we have from the Environment Protection Authority an infringement notice being issued to East Gippsland Region Water Corporation for its failure to invest properly in wastewater management systems and for a discharge of effluent into the Gippsland Lakes. The notice I have in front of me from the EPA refers to the fact that, following previous discharges in 2011 and 2016, a capacity assessment was undertaken in 2016 which identified that the facility was not able to contain wastewater in a 90 percentile wet year. It goes on to highlight that the discharge of human effluent is high in nutrients, salts, suspended solids and pathogens, which pose a risk of harm to people, livestock, wildlife, plants and aquatic ecosystems. The notice from the EPA continues: 'I have reason to believe that your repeated discharges of effluent into Forge Creek are likely to have resulted in harm and you have not taken all reasonable practical measures to prevent future discharges occurring.' East Gippsland Water has been ordered to modify the wastewater management system at its Paynesville recycling facility so that wastewater is prevented from entering service waters, except where authorised by the EPA.
This is a Ramsar-listed wetland which is not getting the care and attention it needs. I was able to secure federal government funding for an independent water quality audit, which is being undertaken by the CSIRO. I thank Minister Ley for that contribution in the aftermath of the bushfires but I'm not convinced the state government is taking the condition of the Gippsland Lakes seriously. I'm looking forward to the report from CSIRO and to the recommendations it makes for future action. So I'm calling on the state government to do more of the heavy lifting required and to work with me to secure current and long-term funding for monitoring, research and practical environmental work in the Gippsland Lakes and the catchment. We need to do better to maintain this natural asset, and I am urging both the state and federal governments to work cooperatively to fund proper environmental work in the region. (Time expired)
Lilley Electorate: Health Care
Ms WELLS (Lilley) (16:54): I rise today to fight for an important health funding issue that is impacting Northsiders and the hospitals in my electorate of Lilley. In March 2022 the Morrison government is set to begin removing 400 medical devices from the Prostheses List without considering important stakeholder feedback, bypassing the clinical review process. The Prostheses List is a list of medical devices that private health insurers must pay for when they are using hospitals to treat a privately insured patient. The list gives doctors the clinical freedom to choose the best technology for each of their patient's needs. Once an item is removed from the Prostheses List, private health insurance companies do not have to pay for them. These radical funding cuts will leave hospitals in my electorate of Lilley faced with the decision of either absorbing the costs no longer covered by insurers, potentially threatening their financial viability, or passing the cost on to their patients as an out-of-pocket cost. On the cutting block is a topical adhesive which will set patients back roughly $200. A surgical adhesive that is set to be defunded will cost patients $170. Another topical skin adhesive with a self-adhering mesh will cost patients $580 out of pocket.
On the one hand, private hospitals in my electorate are in no position to absorb increased costs, particularly in the wake of the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which has resulted in the most difficult 18 months experienced by the sector in living memory. On the other hand, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority estimates that health insurance companies are sitting on a windfall gain of $1.8 billion due to the reduction in hospital claims during the pandemic. These private health cuts are just the latest of a long list of cuts the Morrison government has inflicted on our healthcare system. When the coalition first came to power in 2013, the average out-of-pocket cost to see a GP on the Northside of Brisbane was $27.61. Today, the average out-of-pocket cost in Lilley is $41. That is a 67 per cent increase during the term of this government. Back in July 2021, in the thick of the global pandemic, the Morrison government cut almost 1,000 MBS items from the general surgery list, a cut which directly impacted The Prince Charles Hospital in Chermside.
If these Prostheses List funding cuts progress, private hospitals will be forced to reduce or eliminate some of their services, especially in regional areas, or transfer these services to our already overburdened public hospitals. On behalf of North West Private Hospital, on behalf of Saint Vincent's Private Hospital Brisbane and on behalf of the hundreds of Northsiders who rely on affordable access to these devices, and will in the future, I call on the Morrison government to maintain the Prostheses List funding. I thank the House.
Housing Affordability
Mr LAMING (Bowman) (16:57): All of us know the importance of housing, but a lot of us take it for granted. If there's one thing I've made a commitment of in my career, it's to make sure that housing is as affordable and available as possible—not easy when the Commonwealth government doesn't control public housing. But in 2018, thanks to a staffer by the name of Caroline Rozario, I put together a proposal for a first home owners deposit assistance scheme and workshopped that policy in August 2018 to the Banking Association, who gave great assistance at the time, because we identified that, in many ways, the deposit can be an insurmountable barrier to home ownership. I'm delighted that in the 2019 campaign launch, the Prime Minister announced that home guarantee scheme, that has now helped 60,000 Australians—who otherwise would be renting—into their homes.
Just for a moment I want you to picture that young children should have the ability to put a hook in the wall to display their framed merit certificate, without having to ask the landlord. They need a place they can call home. And I'm not mentioning for the moment the challenge of not even having roof over your head. But I've made a commitment that in my electorate we can work together to make sure that no-one in my electorate is without a roof over their head at night. It was a sheer horror, two months ago, to see a young mum with four children, quivering in the full, pouring Queensland rain, in a park living in two tents for three nights—while people walked past her, taking photographs of her misfortune and reporting it to police. And there was a real estate agent sitting there, where she'd just been evicted from, saying, 'I'm not leaving her until we find a solution.' That's the front line.
But, for me, it's not just about affordability for young professionals who can't find the deposit, it's about those who need economic security and to be on what we call the 'escalator of the economy'. I'm really keen to see this government, the Morrison government, considering options for rent-to-buy and for longer leases and making sure that those who are disadvantaged—such as women over 60 with no superannuation living alone—are able to find a way to home ownership. There are many models being considered in my electorate.
Lastly, of course, there's the great Minjerribah and the people of Stradbroke Island. We need a situation where young Indigenous families are able to borrow from major lenders for land that is community or Indigenous title, and until now we've not found a way to do it. I'm calling on this government to find a way to make it possible for young Indigenous home builders to put their home on Indigenous land through an Indigenous led bank and through the convenorship of IBA, and Sean Armistead and his team have done an incredible job in this respect. I want young Quandamooka, young Indigenous Australians on North Stradbroke Island, to not only control their destiny and be self-determining but be able to borrow from an Australian lender to build their first home without impediment.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): I thank the member for Bowman. In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members' constituency statements has concluded.
GRIEVANCE DEBATE
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That grievances be noted.
Federal Election
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (17:01): Australians are hard workers, and they deserve to be rewarded for their hard work. But, for nearly a decade now, the Liberals have put the needs of Australian families and workers way back on the backburner. Families are now stuck on an economic treadmill, where the cost of living is skyrocketing while, all the time, their wages are going backwards. Australians see it when they visit the supermarket, when they're filling up their cars with petrol and when they're paying those monthly bills. The structural cracks that existed prior to the pandemic are becoming huge chasms for all to bear witness to. As we confront the third year of this pandemic, Australia needs a plan to build back better, a plan to create a country that is fairer, stronger and more resilient, one that leaves no-one behind.
In the coming months, Australians will have an important decision to make. We have two choices. We can choose to re-elect a tired and incompetent government engulfed in almost a decade of disunity, dysfunction and dishonesty, or we can choose to elect a Labor government led by Anthony Albanese, a government that is unified and deeply committed to ensuring a better future for all Australians. For me the choice is clear because there is so much worth fighting for, like fighting for secure, well-paid jobs, jobs that give you a sense of security that the rug won't be ripped out from underneath you.
Right now there are about four million Australians who do not have secure work. Labor wants to fix that. We'll make job security a core focus of the Fair Work Act. We'll legislate to make wage theft a crime. We'll extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to secure a better deal for the gig workers and ensure that, if you work the same job, you get the same pay.
Of course, for us to move forward, we also need to address the structural inequalities that have been exacerbated by this government's incompetence. Australians pay some of the highest childcare costs in the world. It's because the system has been designed in a way that punishes parents, often women, for working that fourth or fifth day in the working week. The system isn't working, but Labor will fix it. We'll abolish the cap on the rebate, making child care cheaper for 97 per cent of Australian families and making sure that no family is ever left worse off.
But child care isn't the only system that's broken. I have spoken to aged-care providers, workers and families in my electorate, who tell me that they have never seen anything remotely as bad as the situation we find today. Older Australians and their families should be able to expect high-quality care in any residential aged-care facility, but we know that the aged-care sector has been screaming out for increased support, since well before the pandemic, which the Morrison government has chosen to ignore time and time again.
Aged-care workers tell me that the situation is dire. We have reports that these highly skilled aged-care workers are at times supplying their own PPE and rapid antigen tests. These workers do an extraordinary job looking after our most vulnerable, but they are grossly undervalued and underpaid. Labor believes they should be paid a better wage.
If Labor is elected to form government, we will present a case to the Fair Work Commission for those aged-care workers to have their wages re-evaluated at an appropriate rate—no ifs or buts—because it is not right that you can earn more packing shelves at night at your local supermarket then you can delivering critical care for our parents, our grandparents and the most vulnerable in our communities.
The same mistakes that we see the Morrison Liberal government make in aged care are also being made in our domestic and family violence sector. The frontline workers who support children fleeing violence are exhausted. They are burnt out and demoralised. The increased pressure from this pandemic has been unrelenting. It is an awful fact, but there are not enough caseworkers to support the number of women who need to escape violence. Even worse, there's nowhere for these women and children to go if they do escape. Refuges are full, and there's not enough safe and affordable housing for women to move into in the longer term.
Leaving an abusive relationship is exactly the time when a woman and her children are most likely to be seriously harmed or murdered by their partner. Tragically, women and children who flee violence are now increasingly living out of cars, pitching tents under bridges and couch surfing with friends and families. These are far from acceptable or safe options for women who are at risk of harm.
In the last 12 months rent has increased by nearly $5,000 in some suburbs in Newcastle. Labor has a commitment to tackle this housing crisis. We will build 20,000 new affordable homes, 4,000 of them allocated expressly to women who are escaping violence and to older women who are at risk of homelessness. We'll expand the number of workers in the domestic violence sector by investing an additional 500 workers to help women and children fleeing violence and to provide much-needed relief to the staff in these services who are already doing it tough. Importantly, at least half of those 500 workers will be placed in rural and regional centres like Newcastle.
Finally, we understand that women's economic security makes all the difference, and for that reason we support 10 days paid domestic violence leave because retaining a connection to your workplace when you're leaving violence is important.
When it comes to health services, the Morrison government has too often abandoned Novocastrians. Despite having COVID within our own community, our vaccines were diverted, pharmacists were left completely in the dark as to what was happening with the programs they were meant to be leading and our critical after-hours GP access service has been gutted. This is on top of the callous cuts to bulk-billing incentives, Medicare rebates and losing our classification as an area of doctor shortage. Families are struggling to get a GP appointment, exacerbating health inequalities even further.
We believe Australians deserve access to the best health care where possible. We know that there is nothing more central to families, to our communities, to our schools and to our economy than our health. Labor will save our GP Access After Hours service. We will restore this funding to ensure that Novocastrians can access the health care they need and deserve. Labor will also unlock the new energy opportunities that lie ahead for regions like Newcastle and the Hunter. Newcastle should be at the centre of our ambition for Australia to become a renewable energy superpower. Our Powering Australia plan will unleash opportunities for new traineeships and apprenticeships for our local manufacturing and supply chains, for our seafarers and for those currently working in traditional resource industries. You can't find many places in the world where you have the rail infrastructure, the manufacturing capacity and the deepwater port to produce and export electricity offshore.
Newcastle in particular has the energy smarts, the industrial experience and the infrastructure needed to be a key player, but first the policy settings have to be right. Australia has a severe skills shortage that is holding back the growth of our businesses, which have been forced to become overreliant on overseas workers and temporary visas. At the same time two million Australians are unemployed or underemployed and there are 85,000 fewer Australians in apprenticeships or traineeships than when the coalition took office. That's why Labor will invest in 465,000 free TAFE places and create up to 20,000 new university places. This investment will mean secure, well-paid jobs and will deliver the pipeline of skills in industries like resources, digital and advanced manufacturing and early childhood education. It will provide the registered nurses, teachers and aged-care and disability professionals that we need today.
COVID-19: Vaccination
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (17:11): It's a pleasure to rise in this grievance debate. There are plenty of grievances that people have. One that many people know that I have is with the vaccine mandates that have been rolled out around the nation, principally by state governments. Unfortunately, we haven't had any action from this place in dismantling those mandates.
Lest people think it is a fringe issue, this is affecting real people—real mums and dads and real workers—out in my community and right around the country. I have met nurses who were unceremoniously sacked after decades of work with Queensland Health. Hospital administration workers have also been sacked. I'm aware that a senior Mackay Queensland Health official in a meeting with other Queensland Health officials and local GP clinics said words to the effect, 'We're glad we're rid of all of those people'—'those people'; those are the words she used. She meant those people who choose—and Australians are entitled to choose—not to get a medical procedure done that they feel isn't right for them. It doesn't matter what we think; that's their right. It's bodily autonomy.
Emergency aircrew workers in Mackay have lost their jobs. People who have served in the defence forces and aged-care workers in Proserpine, Bowen, Mackay and Townsville have all been unceremoniously sacked. I know that there are issues with aged care, but surely to goodness there could have been something done to redeploy these people or appropriately compensate them. Teachers throughout Bowen, Mackay and elsewhere have approached me about having their jobs terminated as well. There are counsellors and psychologists also in Mackay. I've raised this before in this place. A psychologist who saw all of her patients by telehealth from her own house can't work in that field anymore. Apparently COVID is going to sneak down the internet. The NBN is not that good!
Then there are police and administration workers in Mackay. I have had police in other parts of my electorate also contact me about the mandates that have come in in their workplaces. Then there are the doctors and GPs in Mackay, the Whitsundays and elsewhere. I know there was a surgeon who was stood down. There are GPs in Bowen. It's all because of these vaccine mandates.
The Prime Minister said at the start of this whole pandemic, or at least when the vaccines were on their way, that there would not be mandatory vaccines in this country. But it's very strange, given all of these people—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Dr Freelander ): We've had mandatory vaccines for a whole range of reasons in this country for a long time.
Mr CHRISTENSEN: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your input there. Vaccine mandates in this country have been imposed on workers. They weren't part of their original employment contracts, but now they are. They have been abandoned all across the political spectrum, just left to go on the scrapheap of unemployment. That is a disgrace, and we wonder why there were, on the weekend just gone, and why there are going to be, on the weekend to come, thousands of people outside this place demanding that something be done about these mandates. They want their jobs back. They want their lives back. They want this nonsense to end, and end it should. End it could have already.
Foreseeing this coming—foreseeing all of the restrictions that were coming down the line—I put in a request to the powers that be in this place late last year. I said that what we should do is mandate that the data from the Australian Immunisation Register that goes down the pipeline through the myGov app and My Health Record and all the rest of it not be able to be used for the purposes of discrimination. That wasn't done, and it could have been done. I'm very regretful that that wasn't done. Now, we could look at broadening the basis for exemptions that ATAGI can approve, and I think that ATAGI should actually be made to go and develop the criteria to enable conscientious objection to be a valid exemption for these workplace mandates. Why? It is because we know that, when we force someone to act against their will and when we force someone to go against their deeply held conscientious beliefs, there can be psychological, mental and emotional harm caused. That's reason enough to provide that exemption.
There are so many people from all walks of life who have been harmed by this. I met some the other day, and I've got to tell you that most of them, I suspect, were Labor voters—'were' being the operative word. I'm not sure who they'll vote for, because no-one seems to be helping them this time round. There were about 60 port workers who all face losing their jobs by the end of this month simply because of vaccine mandates. They are not being imposed by government in this respect, but, just like what has happened with Qantas and BHP, affecting mine workers in my area, private businesses have decided to get on this bandwagon as well, even though they don't have to.
Now, that has got to be a bridge too far. There is no government imposition, yet they themselves are deciding that they're going to sack workers because of this idea that unvaccinated people are somehow dirty and somehow pose this huge threat to their fellow workers. It's nonsense. It really is nonsense, but people's lives are being uprooted because of it. Their families are being affected by it. People's mortgages are being affected by it. People stand to lose everything because a fundamental principle that has always existed—bodily autotomy—is being completely and utterly eroded before our very eyes. It's not something that I'm just making up. It's not a right that I've suddenly created. It's a right that's enshrined in the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. It says that no-one should be forced to undergo a medical procedure and that, if they choose not to go through with it, there should be no undue penalty put on them—nothing.
Losing your job is a pretty big penalty. So is restricting people from polite society, as is the case at the moment when you can't go to a pub, club, bar, restaurant or cafe. You can't even go to a hospital unless you're sick. Now, you might think, 'Well, that's not a problem,' except for the fact that I had a woman from Mackay who couldn't go to see her dying father in the local Mackay Base Hospital because he wasn't within 24 hours of death, according to the doctors. She couldn't go to see her dying father in the hospital. What a cruel society we have become because of this COVID-19 pandemic! What a cruel and divided society we have become! We are discarding people because of their own choices, as if they don't mean anything.
We're even seeing other Australians turn on these people, through the fear porn that they're subjected to every night on their television sets and through the rhetoric of some politicians—that these antivaxxers are dirty and should be avoided. They're not antivaxxers. Most of these people have gotten every single vaccine up until this point. They're hesitant about it for their own personal reasons, one of which might be that there's just no long-term safety data. That's a fact; that's not me making it up. There is no long-term safety data, because the vaccines have been developed only in the last year. How could there be long-term safety data?
But there doesn't actually need to be a reason to decide not to go down that route. There really should be no reason that people have to give for having a choice over what medicines or vaccines they take and what they don't take. They shouldn't be penalised for those choices, but they are. And someone in authority is going to have to act pretty soon to end this, or this country is going to be in very big trouble, because when people are pushed to the wall, when people have everything taken from them—their job, their ability to put food on the table, their ability to pay off their home loan—well, I guess you could say that those people could become completely and utterly justified in maintaining the rage— (Time expired)
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Black Summer Bushfires
Eden-Monaro Electorate: Volunteers
Ms McBAIN (Eden-Monaro) (17:21): I rise today to implore the government to get a move on and immediately roll out funding under the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program. It's been two years since the Black Summer bushfires wreaked havoc on communities across my electorate. Since then this government has made multiple announcements, committing funding to supporting bushfire affected communities. I can honestly say that I welcome those announcements. I welcome any funding and any commitment from government to support these communities, because I know how much this support is needed.
The problem is that this government is really good at making the announcements—they're experts at standing in front of the camera and making promises—but this government has not been good at the follow-through. One of the big announcements this government shouted from the rooftops in April last year was the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program; $280 million in funding was made available to communities still recovering from the 2019-20 bushfires. Following this announcement I met with countless community groups to discuss the funding and possible projects and to encourage organisations to apply. Our communities know what they need, so I was happy to listen and advocate on their behalf. Successful projects under this fund were originally expected to be announced in November or December last year. Because of this published time line, community groups applied for funding for time-sensitive projects that started early this year.
These competitive grant processes are not easy. They are complicated and stressful, and volunteers spent hours compiling documents and pulling together comprehensive grant applications. But the government, whilst eager to make an announcement, didn't prioritise the delivery. We're now in February, and Eden-Monaro community groups, businesses and councils are still in the dark about whether they'll receive any of this much-needed assistance. Projects that were going to start this month are being delayed or cancelled because community groups don't know whether funding will come. All the while, individuals and communities are still struggling to get back on their feet after the fires. The fact is that the Morrison-Joyce government should have done everything in its power to avoid delays. Instead, my communities have been left waiting for two months, with no reason and no explanation. This has caused unnecessary stress and uncertainty. We're two years on from the Black Summer bushfires. The money has been allocated, and, quite frankly, the government needs to get a move on and make sure this money flows.
We all know that this government likes to throw around money during an election campaign. It is my sincere hope that this is not what has caused the delay with the Black Summer Bushfire Recovery Grants Program, because to even consider delaying bushfire support for political sway is deplorable. Stop the delays, stop the frustration and get on with it, because the truth is that I am sick of having to stand here and call on the government to do more. Supporting bushfire affected communities is a no-brainer, and two years on communities shouldn't still be waiting in the dark.
In times of crisis, communities band together in recovery. Unfortunately, almost immediately after the Black Summer bushfires were over, the pandemic hit and our communities were forced apart. Restrictions meant important community events and social activities were cancelled, including agricultural shows. But, after a two-year hiatus, countries shows are back, and I was thrilled to attend and speak at the Candelo Show recently.
Agricultural shows are the heart of so many rural communities. They're an integral part of our community identity, and it is wonderful that these shows are back, across my electorate. It's at ag shows that you can witness firsthand the intrinsic value of community that is still so strong in towns and villages across Eden-Monaro. Of course our ag shows have all the traditional activities such as woodchopping, dog jumping, horse programs and baking competitions. When you attend these shows, what becomes obvious is that the backbone of the agricultural shows are the volunteers that make them happen and the personal connections made.
After two years it's so special to see people catching up while celebrating something that means so much to them. These catch-ups and connections are so valuable to people in regional and rural areas like mine. On top of demonstrating the best of our agricultural industry and community, ag shows like those in Candelo and Nimmitabel are an important way for people in other parts of our region to get an understanding of the job our farmers do. They're also a fantastic opportunity for children to get up close to farm animals and learn about the role in supplying produce across the state and country.
I give a big shout-out to all of our volunteers who have worked tirelessly for months to get these shows back up and running. It's a huge effort to coordinate and organise these wonderful shows, and I know so many people in our local communities are very thankful. Unfortunately, it is not possible for me to get to every ag show across Eden-Monaro, as much as I'd love to. While I'll get to the ones that I can, I encourage everyone else to get out there and support your local shows. The Candelo, Eurobodalla and Nimmitabel shows were all fantastic family-friendly events, and the Cobargo show is on this weekend. I know how excited this community is for the show to be back. If you're on the coast, please head into Cobargo and check out the show. If you live in the Snowy Monaro, Queanbeyan-Palerang, Yass Valley or Snowy Valleys, and Cobargo is too far to travel, don't worry; there are plenty of other shows coming up that will no doubt showcase the best of our communities.
I won't sing the tired old song 'I've Been Everywhere', but, over the next two months, the shows that are coming up include Bega, Braidwood, Delegate, Tumut, Dalgety, Cooma, Adelong, Bemboka, Bombala, Tumbarumba, Yass and Batlow. Odds are, if you've got a free weekend over the next two months, there's a country show in the region that you can attend. So, please, get out there, take your family, enjoy the entertainment on offer and support our country shows.
Lastly, before I wrap up, I'd like to keep the positivity going and talk about the Australia Day honours list, to reflect on the contributions and achievements of some local residents. Across Eden-Monaro we have an extraordinary number of volunteers who dedicate huge amounts of time to giving back to their community. Almost every town and village across Eden-Monaro took the opportunity on Australia Day to recognise and thank community members who have gone above and beyond.
I was pleased to attend Australia Day ceremonies in Yass, Cooma and Queanbeyan, where I was able to congratulate Barry O'Mara, Helen Drayton and Christine Butler for being named citizens of the year in their respective communities. Congratulations also to Snowy Valley Citizen of the Year, Raymond (Dossie) Carr and Bega Valley Citizen of the Year John Cullen. But they weren't the only ones to receive this honour. All across Eden-Monaro, individuals and groups were recognised. To everyone who received an honour or award, please accept my sincere congratulations. Our communities wouldn't be the same without the efforts of these incredible people.
Across Eden-Monaro, dozens of new Australians also took the citizenship pledge on Australia Day. To all of our new Australians: I'm thrilled that you've chosen our country as your new home. Please accept my heartfelt welcome. We are so happy to have you.
Before I sit down, I want to give a shout-out to the Eden-Monaro residents who were recognised in the Governor-General's Australia Day honours list: Andrew Colvin of Sutton, who has been appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to law enforcement, to counterterrorism initiatives and to bushfire recovery programs; and to four residents who were appointed Members of the Order of Australia—Professor Roslynne Hansen of Merimbula for significant service to urban planning architecture and to educational, professional and heritage conservation organisations; Professor Virginia Hooker of Braidwood for significant service to tertiary education and to Asia-Pacific relations; Edward Helm of Karabar for service to veterans and their families; and someone I know personally, Shirley Rixon, of Merimbula, for service to the community of the Sapphire Coast.
Congratulations also to Shona Blewett of Royalla, Megan Lees of Murrumbateman and Andrew Snashall of Jerrabomberra on receiving Public Service Medals, and to Detective Sergeant Louise Denley of Sutton for receiving an Australian Police Medal. And well done to William Blakeman of Greigs Flat, Tony Rettke of Tathra and Mark Spencer of Binalong, who all received Emergency Service Medals.
To finish off, a huge congratulations to Anthony Duus, Spencer Norris, Jane Spalding, Michel-Louise Devine, Nicole Longley, Griffith Thomas, Troy Van Tienhoven, Kathryn Campbell, Gareth Bowering, Kelly Haywood, Michael Holman, Kenneth Martin, Robyn Smith, Kathleen Kennedy and Rebecca Olsen on receiving military awards, including the Order of Australia, Military Division. Thank you for your service to our country. Thank you to everyone across Eden-Monaro for all the work you continue to do.
Religious Discrimination Bill 2021
Dr WEBSTER (Mallee) (17:30): The Religious Discrimination Bill closes a gap in our Commonwealth legal framework that currently leaves many Australians who have faith vulnerable to discrimination. It is the remaining piece of armour in a suite of protections against discrimination for the Australian people.
People of faith should be afforded protections against discrimination in the same way as those provided under the Sex Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act and, of course, the Age Discrimination Act. Without this religious discrimination legislation, people of faith are left vulnerable to growing forms of discrimination and threats of discrimination on religious grounds.
This is why this legislation is a priority now. Any form of discrimination or social exclusion should not be tolerated in our society and I'm pleased to say that this legislation will provide the protective mechanisms for people of faith across Australia once it's passed. This legislation is a shield, not a sword, to provide adequate protection for religious people, or even for those who hold no belief, we need to render discrimination on these grounds unlawful at the federal level. This bill will remedy the gap that exists in our legal framework.
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion was formally recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Australia, as a signatory, has an international obligation to uphold these commitments and to provide adequate protections for people of faith, including freedom of speech, statements of belief and, of course, association.
I am Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and we have considered a broad range of submissions and testimonies regarding the potential impact that this legislative package will have on Australians. The survey itself had 48,000 respondents and the findings strongly favour the need to protect people of religious belief. Almost all submitters and witnesses acknowledged the importance of freedom from discrimination on religious grounds. Ninety-five per cent of survey respondents supported religious protections, and an overwhelming 82 per cent of respondents supported the Religious Discrimination Bill legislative package as it stands in its current form. These numbers are not insignificant.
In many submissions presented, and in evidence presented by many religious organisations, there was strong support for the statement of belief. In Australia, we have the freedom to think, the freedom to believe—or not believe—and the freedom to follow our convictions and our consciences. But these freedoms for religious people are without adequate protections at present. In the 2016 census, more than half the population aligned themselves with a religious faith, with 30 per cent of Australians nominating no religion. In a fair and just society, no person should be subject to public ridicule because of their religious conviction any more than on the grounds of other personal attributes, such as sex, race, age or intellectual or physical disability; it is thinkable. In fact, the freedom of faith and the freedom to worship are defining characteristics of a liberal democracy. Freedom of religion draws itself from faith values.
This bill is fair and it strikes a balance that does not seek to impede the freedoms of anyone. It is a shield for religious institutions to be able to staff their organisations with people who align with their faith and values, and who hold true to the vision of their work. This bill works on the fundamental principle that faith is caught, not taught. A person's faith is embodied, exemplified, spoken about and modelled. For this reason, many parents across this country choose to send their children to religious schools. They want their children to be brought up in a culture and taught in an ethos which aligns with their faith and their values. These parents want an alternative to the state secular system and they should have the right to make this decision for their children. The principle of conviction and conscience is a principle that we must not lose as a nation. Indeed, this government holds this value central to its service.
The inquiry report into religious discrimination highlighted tragic cases of discrimination that people of faith are experiencing in Australia today at alarming rates. Australian Jewry recorded 447 incidences of anti-Semitism between January and September last year. This included physical assaults, abuse, harassment, vandalism, graffiti, hate and threats that were communicated through various formats. These incidents are tangible, verifiable and real. Sadly, this number indicated a 35 per cent increase from the previous year. Behind these numbers are people's real-life stories. They are devastating and deserve condemnation. In another submission by the Australian National Imams Council, members of the Islamic community stated that this legislative framework would address an urgent and pressing concern held by Australian Muslims.
In Australia, religious schools are an expression of our freedom to believe, our freedom of conscience and the freedom to raise our children with the ethos and values that we hold. For religious schools to be able to provide an authentic and general religious education they need to be able to make organisational decisions in accordance with their convictions. They need to be able to hire according to their deeply held values in order to be true to the mission and ethos their institutions were founded upon.
For some, sending their children to a religious school may be a matter of quality of education; however, for many, it is a matter of wanting the children to be educated in an environment that aligns with their faith convictions. The fact is that parents across Australia in large numbers are choosing to send their children to faith environments, sometimes at a significant financial cost. For these schools and these families, teachers do more than teach mathematics and literacy; it is about raising kids to be citizens of character and good ethos—faith. Religious values are caught, not taught. As the director of public policy of Christian Schools Australia, Dr Mark Spencer, explained, 'If we don't maintain the ethos of the schools, we cease to be the schools we claim to be.'
In my electorate of Mallee, principals of faith based schools have told me that their school's values and ethos are entrenched in their mission and mandate. One principal of a Christian college in the Wimmera says that providing faith based education is about more than just excellence in academia; it's also about children being loved, cared for and receiving a religious education. These virtues are manifestation of the Christian faith. Not only does the religious discrimination legislation set a national standard of acceptance and tolerance for faith but, according to the principal, it provides a level of security, protection and assurance that allows their school community to care for their students.
At Kerang Christian College, principal Wayne Barker told me about how this bill will protect the school to be able to employ people who align with the fundamentals of their faith. If a religious school cannot do this, why would we have religious schools at all? In the case of the Kerang Christian College, parents who don't identify as having Christian faith send their children to this school on the basis of the values and culture that the school cultivates. This is the case across many religious schools throughout Australia.
Schools should have the right to employ teachers who uphold their ethos and faith. Their ability to do this should be preserved and protected. People of faith are increasingly being silenced, shunned and cancelled for their beliefs. This legislation is a shield, not a weapon. It is about the ability to maintain and preserve cultural and religious faith and practice, a legacy which has contributed so much to this country. Central to our democracy is the ability to live in accordance with the deeply held values, beliefs and convictions we hold. This government promised these protections at the last election and now we are standing here to deliver them. Australians deserve no less.
COVID-19: Aged Care
Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (17:39): There can be no doubt whatsoever that the aged-care sector is in crisis. Tonight I give a voice to people in Gilmore telling me about the crisis in aged care—family members and aged-care workers, all with the common bond of looking after our most precious but vulnerable elderly loved ones.
Of course, the aged-care system was already in crisis when COVID hit. Even before Neglect, the report by the royal commission into aged care, there were 22 reports on the aged-care industry. In 2018, under the coalition government, there was the A matter of care:Australia's aged care workforce strategy report, again with recommendations—but not implemented. So it should come as no surprise that the Morrison government continues to fail our most vulnerable elderly people by failing to implement recommendations from the royal commission into aged care. I have one simple ask tonight: listen to these real-life stories. How can anyone ignore them? Clearly, the government needs to do much more.
Recently I was contacted by Brett. Brett's father is in an aged-care home. Brett told me how his father has been confined to his room due to COVID, in the same way that the other residents have been. Brett understands it is due to a lack of staff. Brett wanted to know what could be done about this.
Susan is an aged-care worker. Susan told me, and these are her words, 'We've got the government telling us that we're managing; we're not. You've got the government saying everything's fine; it's not. Yesterday they said another committee is being set up. It doesn't help us. Nothing is helping us. They've offered $800, which is a slap in the face. None of us work full-time, only part-time, so there's no way that you're even going to get the $800. And, besides that, we want the money to go into care. We want more staff. We want ratios. There remains no law to have a registered nurse on site 24/7. How do you manage without a registered nurse? We're all struggling. What you do when nobody's there for 60 people? What do I do? I can't just turn and walk away. It's affecting all the residents. They're frightened. We're not coping. We're drowning. During COVID, at least a quarter of the workforce is gone, and they can't replace them. So, in January, the stats are 140,000 shifts were not filled across the board. The residents are getting substandard care because you can't do it—you can't physically do it. There is no-one to help us. It's not that management are not trying; there is just no staff. Nobody will come.'
Jess is an assistant in nursing. Jess says: 'We're incredibly short-staffed. We had a scare with a resident that came back from hospital. The resident came back and then tested positive for COVID. The management were all there, and no-one had an idea of what to do. It was as if there was no plan in place, but everyone that was on that ward were at risk. They had moved the resident that was in the room with the COVID-positive patient out into the common area. There's a huge infection control issue there. There's no privacy for this resident. Other residents are walking around because they don't know what's going on. The resident in the common area didn't have access to a call bell, so the only way to draw attention was to yell down the hallway, bringing more distress to the other residents. It was just all-round awful. We were short-staffed that day. It was me trying to figure out how I could do my day with 15 residents—trying to convey calm and trying to be a calming force for them, because all the residents are stressed out. They don't know what's happening. They can't leave their rooms.
'We had no cleaners that day, we had no lunch, like no food service that day. Basically it was all left to the carers to do. Not only am I trying to provide personal care to residents; I am trying to do medications for them and trying not to mess that up, and in charge of getting all these people their meals for the day and trying to clean up anything that has happened—and then to get a call asking us to do 12-hour shifts and to quit our second job if we had any. So that was the day that I decided I was done. I was out. I had given so much to this place. And it's such a shame, because I love aged care; I loved the residents I was looking after. The residents aren't getting the care that they deserve. They're not getting the care that they're paying for. And it just blows my mind that the government is putting all the money in, but the residents aren't getting anything from it. They're not getting the staff to do their job. There is just nothing there. It's incredibly frustrating.'
Glen is a registered nurse who works in aged care. He normally works locally but due to COVID he is part of a fly-in squad working in aged-care homes with COVID outbreaks. Glen says: 'The outbreak infects the residents and the outbreak infects the staff. When staff get infected they have to stay off the roster, and you have no capacity to deliver the services that you need to deliver.' Glen has spent time further north at another facility that also had a COVID outbreak and found exactly the same thing: 'Once the outbreak occurs within the facility staff numbers are decimated.' He says: 'There is no way you can deliver the service safely and with quality.' In the first fortnight of last month Glen put in 184 hours, which is way over the normal workload. Last fortnight Glen worked 144 hours. This fortnight Glen will work another 144 hours just to keep things functioning, not to deliver the model of care.
Glen says: 'There is a very simple solution to get the resources we need.' The simplest solution would have been not to neglect the aged-care system for 10 years. The second solution would've been to act on the 120 recommendations of the aged-care royal commission. Glen says: 'Since lockdown occurred family, friends and carers have been locked out of their homes.' We now have a public vaccination rate that is high enough to afford those people sufficient protection to be able to enter the facilities and provide care and support when the rosters are short.
The government needs to look at its myopic policy on vaccination and lockdowns and start to think realistically about the needs of residents. Glen says: 'When you spend 184 hours a fortnight in full PPE it is very physically demanding. In the last five weeks I've lost weight. When you take your PPE off after two hours you have to take all your other clothes off and replace them with fresh clothes because they're saturated in perspiration.' Glen says: 'The general public has no clue what's going on here.' He goes on to say: 'The Morrison government had absolutely no idea. There is a gentleman who is 90 something years old who has been locked in his bedroom since December. There is something seriously wrong with the world.' We're doing that to the elderly. We're here because of them. They're the forgotten people.
The tragedy here is that this was foreseeable. There is not one aspect of this calamity that could not be forecast by somebody working in the industry. The medical profession, the nursing profession and the carers had been flagging it since the beginning of the pandemic. 'We've been ignored. You just get so down every day. There's an awful lot of emotional and mental exhaustion from all workers. We have residents who are normally calm, cool and collected who are now getting very abusive and emotionally upset and striking out. It's a flow-on effect to everybody. We don't have time to go in and sit with them and talk to them for four hours because there are 40 others. They won't listen to us. How can you keep ignoring it?' You don't get to say that I would rather go to the cricket than go to a Senate committee hearing.
Imagine how our beautiful elderly in care are feeling at the moment. It's not right at all. Glen says: 'It can't really get any worse. Just the dying in care would get worse.' These real-life stories are truly shocking. I implore the government to do more before it's too late.
Western Australian Government
Mr RICK WILSON (O'Connor) (17:48): I rise today to raise several grievances my electorate of O'Connor has with the WA state Labor government. This is a state government whose Premier and Treasurer boasts about a budget surplus in the midst of unprecedented support from the federal government during the COVID pandemic. In fact, in 2021 WA received $7.2 billion in COVID support and a further $2.1 billion in GST top-up. This Premier is happy to take credit for many projects funded by the federal government, yet underdelivers when it comes to state funding commitments, including in health, where, despite the state's assertions to the contrary, the federal government has achieved COVID vaccination levels of 80 to 100 per cent in some of O'Connor's most remote communities, while most WA hospitals remain underprepared for when coronavirus finally reaches our not-so-closed borders—borders which in my electorate have witnessed an influx of interstate travellers by unmanned border crossings and underpoliced thoroughfares through some of the most remote and vulnerable Aboriginal communities in Australia.
When it comes to infrastructure projects, I'll cite the example of the $175 million Albany Ring Road project. The federal government stumped up $140 million for this game-changing project for Albany while the state government dragged its heels in committing the remainder, but now conveniently claims the credit. This is a pattern repeated time and time again, not only in my electorate but in those of my federal colleagues throughout WA.
While in Albany, I have a grievance with the glacial pace at which WA Labor is moving in providing operational funding for a much-needed crisis centre. Back in November, ahead of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, I rose to draw members' attention to an inconsistency in Labor's rhetoric on this very serious issue. I explained that in Albany the Southern Aboriginal Corporation received more than $3 million from the Morrison government to build a six-unit crisis centre to support women and children attempting to escape violence.
The CEO, Asha Bhat, visited Parliament House last year and said the cooperation's current refuge was at full capacity. Ms Bhat said that people were being housed in other regional areas, where they did not necessarily feel safe or welcome. She said a crisis centre in Albany would greatly alleviate the situation. In November, Ms Bhat told me the cooperation's planned project, which includes an outdoor kitchen, adventure playground and healing and counselling rooms, was under threat. This was because WA Labor is yet to come to the party with operational funding. Southern Aboriginal Corporation wishes to partner with Anglicare, which has experience in running similar services in Albany and in acquitting state government funding. Federal funding for the centre was announced back in May last year, under the Commonwealth's $72.6 million Safe Places Emergency Accommodation Program.
In parliament in November, I implored federal opposition leader Anthony Albanese to pull whatever levers he could to get his WA Labor colleagues to fund the operation of the planned crisis centre by Christmas. I wrote to Simone McGurk, the Western Australian Minister for Child Protection; Women's Interests; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence; Community Services, to inform her of the situation. I received a reply rich in rhetoric but very light on action. It's now February and still no state funding has been forthcoming. That's zero operational funding for a project that would support 166 women and children each and every year. That's zero operational funding for a project that the women and children of WA's Great Southern Region are crying out for. That's zero operational funding to address a serious issue about which Labor waxes lyrical but, in this case, is falling well short of expectations. With Christmas come and gone, I implore WA Labor to do the right thing and provide operational funding well before the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women in 2022 from Albany, the biggest city in my electorate, to one of the smallest and remote towns, O'Connor, where this experience is echoed.
I recently visited Warburton, the main town servicing the Aboriginal communities on the Western Australian, South Australian and Northern Territory border. The president of the Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku, Damian McLean, hosted me on a tour of the town. Mr McLean pointed out the enormous piles of refuse in household gardens and on vacant land, and detritus accumulated in the four years since the WA government took over responsibility for waste services and other town utilities. Throughout the town, broken irrigation pipes have left precious water lying unused and being wasted. This has attracted wild camels, which further damages the ageing water infrastructure that is the lifeblood of this desert community.
Last year, the shire put in a budget proposal for state funding to repair the water infrastructure and it was denied. In desperation, the shire approached Minister Ken Wyatt, who tasked the National Indigenous Australians Agency with engaging the WA government to secure accurate costings for repair, acknowledging that estimates anywhere between $2 million and $6 million in extra federal support would be required. Meanwhile, more than $900,000 in local roads and community infrastructure funding remains unspent, as the shire needs to repair the ongoing water leakage before embarking on planned upgrades to the town's 21-year-old road infrastructure.
While in Warburton I met with Daniel Tucker of Carey mining and Craig Patterson of Central Earthmoving. These men are actively involved in Indigenous training and procurement for the construction of the trans-Australian route the Outback Way, known as 'Australia's longest shortcut'. Running from western Queensland through the shires of Ngaanyatjarraku and Laverton, the Outback Way is, literally, paving a pathway off welfare and into employment for people living in these remote communities.
Whilst the Shire of Ngaanyatjarraku is a pilot program for the federal government's remote engagement program, the adjacent shires of Laverton, Leonora and Menzies, right down to the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and the Shire of Coolgardie, are all part of the cashless card trial. This very effective trial would end should the people of Australia this year elect a Labor government at the upcoming federal election, so I take this opportunity to commend the Morrison government on continuing with the trial.
Most city folk assume it only involves quarantining 80 per cent of a participant's welfare payment onto a Visa debit card that cannot be used to buy alcohol, drugs or gambling products, but the trial is so much more than that. Let me tell you what I've seen in the years since its introduction. I've seen children being fed before going to school such that school breakfasts are no longer required; parents with shopping trolleys full of food, children's toys and clothes where once there were slabs of beer; elders confident to loan their cars to their children and grandchildren, knowing that money can only be spent responsibly; and wraparound services, including financial capability and wellbeing counselling that have helped participants manage their bills and save their money.
This brings me to the latest federal Jobs Fund, a job-ready initiative in the Goldfields and a program tailored to help transition cashless debit card participants into meaningful job training and potential employment. Last week I opened the cashless debit card employment support hub in Kalgoorlie-Boulder. It is the first of four hubs that will service the five local government authorities in the cashless debit card trial sites. Each hub will be funded to provide tailored solutions to meet individual cashless debit card participants' capabilities and aspirations towards availing themselves of job opportunities that abound in many parts of the Goldfields trial site.
I met with Jessica, the regional project manager for cashless debit card services. Jessica explained that the hub coordinator's role is to engage with employers and industry on job availability and the skill sets required, then refer participants to existing job-training programs or bespoke skills training. She pointed out that more than 7.5 per cent of Goldfields residents have an educational achievement of year 9 or below, so some of the job preparedness training would be aimed at achieving year 10 equivalence and securing essential qualifications such as a drivers licence and identification.
I commend the City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and the shires of Coolgardie, Menzies, Leonora and Laverton for embracing this new initiative and expanding the suite of services associated with the cashless debit card trial in their communities. These LGAs and their community leaders all agree the trials provide an opportunity to address some of the wider social issues fuelled by alcohol and drug abuse. I share in their frustrations at not being able to call on a collaborative state government to provide the data needed to underpin the improvements they've seen in school attendance, child welfare, domestic and family violence, hospital presentations, local crime and other social harm. I thank the community leaders for observing that recent COVID-induced pauses on the cashless debit card activations and community development program compliance activities, among other matters, have had negative effects on the communities. This provides a degree of foresight of what we can expect if a Labor government is elected and scraps the cashless debit card trial in the vast Goldfields region of my electorate.
I close by renewing my call for the WA government to step up and share the load of improving the lives of the people in my communities across O'Connor.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Irons ): The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192(b). The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.
Federation Chamber adjourned at 17:58