The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 9:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
That this bill be now read a second time.
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2019
That this bill be now read a second time.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Assistance and Access Amendments Review) Bill 2019
That this bill be now read a second time.
Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Enhancing Australia's Anti-Doping Capability) Bill 2019
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment (Sport Integrity Australia) Bill 2019
That this bill be now read a second time.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019
… a recent analysis of submissions to the Committees exploring the 2017 and 2018 bills … observed that 98% of submissions by organisations and individuals opposed the bills. The remaining submissions—
were from the Department itself.
Firstly, there is no conclusive evidence that mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients delivers any benefits such as deterring recipients from drug use, increasing levels of employment or reducing welfare spending.
Secondly, the notion that illicit drug use is higher amongst the unemployed population and that this results in lowered employment capacities is unfounded.
The international experience shows that when you push people to the brink, like removing their welfare payments, things just get worse. There will be more crime, more family violence, more distress within society.
Australia's largest specialist medical college is disappointed in a Senate Inquiry report released today, which neglects to consider wide ranging evidence that drug testing welfare recipients leads to more harm than good.
The Senate Inquiry report into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Drug Testing Trial) Bill 2019 has today recommended that the Government pursue their plan to trial drug testing of 5,000 welfare participants across three trial sites.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) remains strongly opposed to this Bill, on the basis that it is not evidence-based, goes against all the expert advice provided to the Government on the matter, and is likely to be clinically harmful to people suffering with drug and/or alcohol addiction.
The Bill's stated aim is to improve a recipient's capacity to find employment or participate in education or training by identifying people with drug use issues and assisting them to undertake treatment. It is our careful assessment—
that drug testing will have an adverse rather than positive impact on achieving that outcome. The RACP supports the need for Government action to help overcome drug and alcohol addiction in the community and improve employment outcomes, but drug testing welfare recipients is in no way a solution – in fact, it creates further health problems in the community.
The recommendations of this report contradict the expert advice and evidence from all the addiction, health and social care experts, who are united in their opposition to drug testing welfare recipients
If the Federal Government is serious about addressing addiction and assisting people to gain employment, it needs to invest in quality, evidence-based alcohol and drug treatment services and a suitably trained workforce.
Drug testing welfare participants is in no way an effective strategy to improving employment or health outcomes in the community and the RACP urges all Parliamentarians to oppose this Bill which flies in the face of evidence.
The House divided. [11:29]
(The Speaker—the Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [11:32]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That this bill be now read a third time.
National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019
That this bill be now read a second time.
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:
(1) notes that this Liberal Government slashed the original cap of 50,000 dwellings in the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) to 38,000; and
(2) also notes that as a result of the Government's continuing inaction to meaningfully address housing affordability:
(a) the percentage of Australians who own their own home has dropped to its lowest level since Robert Menzies was Prime Minister back in the 1960s;
(b) the number of Australians behind in their mortgage payments today is at its greatest level since the global financial crisis;
(c) a report released last month by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare showed that in 2017-18 over 1 million low-income households were in financial housing stress and that 43.1 per cent of low income households renting in Australia are suffering rental stress; and
(d) there are more homeless Australians than ever before".
Many low-income renters are in poverty, and many more are suffering financial stress. Inequality is increasing because rising housing costs have disproportionately whittled away the income growth of poorer households. A growing number of Australians are becoming homeless.
Low-income Australians clearly need more support with housing. The question is how.
Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019
That the requested amendments be agreed to.
Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019
We see there is a risk of inequality. A lot of people who are homeless have experienced childhood trauma. There are mental health issues. Many of them are victims of … sexual abuse. So they are complex cases. Those inequalities are deep rooted.
Despite the high level of household debt in Australia relative to other countries, the risks from household debt appeared to be mostly contained. … members noted that households continued to have large prepayments on their housing debt. In aggregate, mortgage prepayments were equal to two-and-a-half years of repayments.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the House immediately debating the state of the Australian economy, with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period of up to 10 minutes each and four other Members speaking for a period of up to 5 minutes each.
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the House immediately debating the state of the Australian economy, with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition speaking for a period of up to 10 minutes each and four other Members speaking for a period of up to 5 minutes each.
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That the question be now put.
The House divided [15:17]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [15:20]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The Government's failure to address disadvantage and ensure a fair go for all Australians.
… not only is income inequality not rising, our best guess is that it is actually falling.
… dispel the popular perception that the benefits of growth are not being broadly shared.
That the House take note of the report.
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019
That this bill be now read a third time.
The doubt itself regarding the credibility of the defendant in everything relating to her mental status creates the concern that this is an attempt by her to escape justice and to disrupt the legal proceedings.
… this case has gone on for far too long and nothing short of full justice can be acceptable.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms Vamvakinou) took the chair at 09:59.
Neither Licensee nor Principal shall employ or seek to employ any person who is at the time employed by McDonald's or by Licensor or by any of the subsidiaries or associated or related companies of McDonald's or Licensor or by any person who is at the time operating a McDonald's restaurant, or otherwise induce, or attempt to induce, directly or indirectly, such person to leave such employment.
… even the best "political pamphlets" don't mean much if the voters believe its authors will not be around long enough to translate words into action.
Alas, though, in itself this budget it won't be enough to avoid a Coalition electoral catastrophe.
We believe in choice. And because of that, it means we believe in our future. We are an optimistic, we are a passionate, and we are an ambitious people, full of aspiration, for ourselves, for our families, and of course for our great nation, for all of us. That is what we believe as Liberals. Our plan, my plan for this country is for an even stronger Australia.
It is a development which has been brought about by marrying the hard work and practical knowledge of the farmer to the researches of the scientists. This is the modern pioneering technique. The frontiers of settlement in Australia have been pushed back nearly as far as they will go … The new pioneers are those who, in their practical work on farms and their researches in institutions and universities, are pushing back, not the frontiers of settlement, but the frontiers of knowledge. This work is so vital to the future development of the country that they deserve every ounce of support and encouragement that we can give them.
One of the things about life in politics, with a large country electorate and with ministerial responsibilities, is that you lose touch with a normal life.
I can remember when the die was cast and the decision finally taken, Menzies sat back in his chair and just looked around the table—
and said; 'There comes a time in the life of any government where it just has to make decisions which it believes are in the best interests of the country, even if they believe they are committing political suicide.'
That further proceedings be conducted in the House.
… Sunwater and the Government are making every effort to ensure that the water that has to be released for safety is being used as productively as possible.
… … …
… to allow works to improve the dam's stability during extreme rain events.
In respect of the statement on page 11 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publication Australian Aid Budget Summary 2019-20 that the Government is spending
$300 million over four years to 2020 to deliver climate and disaster resilient low carbon growth in the Pacific region: (a) how much of this $300 million was spent in: (i) 2015-16, (ii) 2016-17, (iii) 2017-18, and (iv) 2018-19; and (b) how much has been spent in 2019-20 to date.
a) Australia has committed to spending at least $300 million over four years (2016-17 to 2019-20) on climate change and disaster resilience in the Pacific.
i. n/a
ii. $101.9 million
iii. $95.2 million
iv. Not yet available as data is undergoing validation.
b) Data for 2019-20 is not yet available.
In respect of the statement on page 11 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publication Australian Aid Budget Summary 2019-20 that the Government is spending $300 million over four years to 2020 to deliver climate and disaster resilient low carbon growth in the Pacific region, for each year from 2015-16 to 2018-19 and for 2019-20 to date: (a) can details be provided of each individual project or initiative funded under this measure; (b) what sum of money was spent on each project; (c) in which country or countries is each project located; (d) what was the period of time over which each project was in operation; and (e) what were the outcomes achieved from each project or initiative.
1. Attachment A illustrates how climate and disaster resilience is being integrated across the Australian aid program in the Pacific.
In accordance with DAC requirements:
- where climate change and disaster resilience is a primary objective of an investment, 100 per cent of the investment is accounted;
- where climate change and disaster resilience is a secondary objective of an investment, a proportion of the investment is accounted.
Attachment A – Climate and disaster resilience in Pacific regional and bilateral programs is available from the table office.
In respect of the 13 August 2019 joint media release 'Stepping up Climate Resilience in the Pacific' which said the Government would provide $500 million from existing aid funds for Pacific renewable energy, climate change and disaster resilience over five years from 2020: (a) in which financial years will this $500 million be provided; (b) how much has been allocated for each financial year; (c) does this $500 million include any funds from the $300 million budgeted for Pacific climate and disaster resilient growth over the four years to 2020 as outlined on page 11 of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publication Australian Aid Budget Summary 2019-20; if so, how much of the $300 million has been moved from the four years to 2020 to the five years from 2020; and (d) given that the $500 million will come from existing aid funds, (i) how much will planned aid expenditure for countries in regions other than the Pacific be reduced to accommodate the $500 million commitment, (ii) which countries will see reductions, (iii) how much will planned aid expenditure through global, multilateral or regional channels be reduced to accommodate the $500 million commitment, (iv) which global, multilateral or regional channels will see reductions, (v) how much will planned aid expenditure for Pacific countries on investment priorities other than renewable energy, climate change and disaster resilience be reduced to accommodate the $500 million commitment, and (vi) which other investment priorities will see reductions.
a) From 2020-21 to 2024-25.
b) Allocation across financial years is not fixed. Australia will work with Pacific countries to target spending on their priorities.
c) No.
d)
i. to iv. Decisions on funding allocations are made annually.
v. Australia's aid to Pacific countries will reflect the priorities of those countries.
vi. Decisions on funding allocations are made annually.
(1) Has the Government of the United States of America (US) returned to the Australian Government the US$3.3 million, previously held on trust for the purposes of constructing an education centre in Washington DC on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Foundation; if not, why not.
(2) Has the Australian Government received interest payments since the funds were transferred to the US Government in 2013; if so, what is the total amount received; if not, why not.
(1) The US$3.3million contribution made by the Australian Government for the construction of the Vietnam Veterans Education Centre (VVEC) on the National Mall in Washington DC was paid to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund (VVMF). The VVMF is the non-profit organisation that was responsible for managing and raising funds for the project. No payments were made to the US Government.
The VVMF has made contact with the Australian Government to establish how the funding may be returned and to outline its revised plans to educate people about the Vietnam War through online and technology-based methods. A detailed business case is yet to be received from the VVMF.
(2) The Australian Government contribution for the VVEC was made to ensure that Australia's participation in the Vietnam War was appropriately represented and to provide a source of education about our involvement to American and international visitors to the centre. There was never any expectation that a return on investment in monetary value would be realised.
Any decision relating to the funding (including the potential for full or partial return of Australia's contribution) will be made once the Australian Government has been able to consider how it may best support the VVMF's revised plans.
With respect to Contract Notice CN3625404 published on Austender on 3 September 2019:
(1) What are the details of the market research to be provided by Hall and Partners Pty Ltd.
(2) What subject matters will the market research cover.
(3) What methodologies will be used in the market research.
(4) Why has the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned this market research.
(5) If the market research relates to a government advertising campaign: (a) what are the details of that campaign; and (b) what phase of the campaign will the market research support.
(1) Contract Notice CN3625404 is for Education and Training Services with Lisa Denny Consulting.
(2) N/A
(3) N/A
(4) N/A
(5) N/A
With respect to Contract Notice CN3625955 published on Austender on 5 September 2019:(1) What are the details of the market research to be provided by Colmar Brunton.(2) What subject matters will the market research cover.(3) What methodologies will be used in the market research.(4) Why has the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade commissioned this market research.(5) If the market research relates to a government advertising campaign: (a) what are the details of that campaign; and (b) what phase of the campaign will the market research support.
1. The Colmar Brunton market research is to gauge community attitudes towards international trade and foreign direct investment; and to test the effectiveness of government messaging when engaging with the general public on these topics.
2. Community attitudes toward international trade and foreign direct investment.
3. Online survey for 1800 participants plus a further 200 telephone interviews.
4. To inform the department's approach to public communications about international trade and foreign direct investment.
5. The market research does not relate to a government advertising campaign.
a. Nil response.
b. Nil response.