The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
That the House:
(1) notes the Prime Minister:
(a) has taken his rorts to the streets, allocating more than 83 percent of the $3 billion Urban Congestion Fund to Liberal seats and marginal seats targeted by the Liberal Party;
(b) allocated funding to every Liberal seat that was marginal or under threat, as well as several marginal regional electorates held or targeted by the Liberal Party;
(c) did not allocate a cent to address congestion in 38 urban and regional city seats held by non-Government Members;
(d) incorrectly claimed the projects were election commitments, when the Urban Congestion Fund was established in the 2018 Budget;
(e) did not release any guidelines, did not formally call for expressions of interest, did not spend a cent from the Urban Congestion Fund in 2018-19, but did spend $17 million of government resources on pre-election advertisements telling us how good it was; and
(f) repeatedly sought to downplay and dismiss the serious allegation that his government continually spends taxpayer dollars for private political gain; and
(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:
(a) correct his incorrect statement that Urban Congestion Fund projects are election commitments; and
(b) explain why his Government used taxpayer money as though it was its own personal marketing fund.
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Ballarat from moving the following motion immediately:
That the House:
(1) notes the Prime Minister:
(a) has taken his rorts to the streets, allocating more than 83 percent of the $3 billion Urban Congestion Fund to Liberal seats and marginal seats targeted by the Liberal Party;
(b) allocated funding to every Liberal seat that was marginal or under threat, as well as several marginal regional electorates held or targeted by the Liberal Party;
(c) did not allocate a cent to address congestion in 38 urban and regional city seats held by non-Government Members;
(d) incorrectly claimed the projects were election commitments, when the Urban Congestion Fund was established in the 2018 Budget;
(e) did not release any guidelines, did not formally call for expressions of interest, did not spend a cent from the Urban Congestion Fund in 2018-19, but did spend $17 million of government resources on pre-election advertisements telling us how good it was; and
(f) repeatedly sought to downplay and dismiss the serious allegation that his government continually spends taxpayer dollars for private political gain; and
(2) therefore calls on the Prime Minister to:
(a) correct his incorrect statement that Urban Congestion Fund projects are election commitments; and
(b) explain why his Government used taxpayer money as though it was its own personal marketing fund.
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:35]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [09:42]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That the question be put.
The House divided. [09:46]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [09:51]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Health Insurance Amendment (General Practitioners and Quality Assurance) Bill 2020
That this bill be now read a second time.
Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020
That this bill be now read a second time.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2019-2020
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2019-2020
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [10:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
When I first got married, I thought that I was going to have a wonderful life and fulfil all the dreams a newlywed could hope for. As an A-grade student throughout high school, I went on to run my own business, had just planned an around-the-world trip and was excited about life and the prospect of sharing that life with another.
I thought I'd met a man who was handsome, adventurous and brave but, instead, I was introduced to a crazy world that I could never have imagined or prepared myself for. I had no idea the transformation that was to follow over the next 14 years.
I didn't understand that domestic violence is like a little microscopic worm that sneaks into your mind and slowly kills you from the inside. You do not realise you are dying until it is almost too late, or someone comes and rescues you from an early grave.
I always thought the worm would look like a big, unkempt, nasty, thug that swore and punched holes in the walls but instead it was quiet and cunning and deadly.
I never fully understood the danger I was in until after I got out.
It started with my partner being disgruntled and a little bit unpredictable. He was not considerate and he was a fraction selfish. I thought this was nothing unusual. After all, newlyweds have their settling in period and I was sure I had a few things he didn't like, either. I decided to just try a little harder to be a better wife.
Well, to him being a better wife meant I should really spend less time with my friends, give up my business and be a stay-at-home mum. He said that most women would be envious of that privilege, and not to worry about my family too much since they clearly didn't understand what being a good wife was. After all, he said, they were divorced, so what would they know about how to overcome marital issues? He wanted me to sell my car because he said we needed only one and it was better for us financially.
Slowly but surely the worm continued to eat away at my common sense and freedom until one day, many years later, I had given him my $30,000 of savings, completely cut off all of my family and friends, attempted suicide and let him kill all my beloved pets.
He had sexually abused my daughter, groomed the others, smashed down every door in the house, made me miscarry, beat me up more times than I can remember, threatened to kill us all and stole the beautiful vivacious girl I once was from within me. I never laughed. I never smiled. I was a dead woman walking.
But still I wouldn't have labelled myself one of 'those women' who experience domestic violence. How can a normal, healthy, happy girl be reduced to a shadow of a person and not see anything wrong? Because the worm was eating me away. With each bite, it was making itself bigger and stronger and I was getting smaller and weaker.
Eventually, to my horror the authorities stepped in. What for, I thought? I'm a good wife. I'm looking after my kids. I don't drink or take drugs or live like a vagabond. I'm married. I'm a good person. I had NO IDEA that all the life had been sucked out of me.
But, fortunately for me, it was the first time a law was passed that enabled a magistrate to take out a Violence Restraining Order WITHOUT my permission, on my husband, to protect us all from this unreasonable and unpredictable man.
It was only then that I began to heal. I needed space and silence.
I didn't appreciate fully at the time the beautiful people who came along and walked every step by my side to support me and be my strength in times of complete weakness. I thought that they didn't really know my situation or understand, but they actually did. They knew my predicament better than I ever knew and if it wasn't for their continued support, encouragement and protection I would most definitely not be here today, and my seven precious children would be dispersed among the community, trying to make sense of it all.
I will remain eternally grateful to all the domestic violence support workers who have carried me over the years, in the courtroom and out, particularly the staff at Starick.
I am so very thankful for the women's refuges throughout Perth, the police who see the destruction first hand yet continue to care in the wee hours when nobody else can help, the magistrates who watch our declining culture day in and day out but choose to protect us, still, by putting boundaries in place, and all the people who become a voice for those who have lost theirs.
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [10:56]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [11:31]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
… to accelerate critical infrastructure projects across Australia to drive jobs, strengthen the economy and get people home sooner and safer…
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [12:01]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
I submitted a plan in October 2019.
It returned with significant cuts … The Coordinator submitted an appeal stating that the Transport funding was crucial as my Carer had developed Parkinsons, meaning I couldn't rely on her always being available to take me to appointments.
As for funding for group activities, NDIA had asked for progress reports from all parties engaged in the previous plan. Without exception they stated the progress gained over that year and how it was crucial to continue. So why ask for these details if someone is just going to say "Nuh!" and put a line through an item number with no explanation?
In late November I received a letter from the NDIS stating that they'd received an appeal on my behalf dated October 23, 2019 and informing me that under their guidelines they had three months to address the situation or notify me why they couldn't … that was over four months ago and I've heard NOTHING! No answer, no information, NOTHING. I've contacted them several times and the answer is always "the matter is before a delegate."
I'm at my wits end and have even told my therapist I'd rather be dead than dependant on the NDIS.
I have no doubt that intermittent renewables could meet 100% of Australia's electricity requirements by the 2030s, with high degrees of security and reliability, and at wholesale prices much lower than experienced in Australia over the past half dozen years.
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [12:34]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
If you have an ongoing health problem it becomes a huge problem if you have to go to your doctor and he no longer bulk bills. If you cannot afford to go to your own doctor and you decide to go to the hospital you are told that you should have gone to your own doctor because the hospital is already overloaded.
It is bad policy to undermine the public health system in favour of demonstrably far less efficient privatisation of health services. With the current government's policy settings we are heading down the path of the US which has the most inefficient and expensive healthcare system in the world.
Cutting back Medicare for doctors after a decade-long freeze will sound the death knell of public health in this country. Please don't do it.
Net-zero emissions is consistent with strong economic growth ...
South Australia is taking a lead in targeting net-zero emissions by 2050.
... if you have a considered plan, over the long-term, you do it in a way which is measured, which is organised, and which transitions you through ...
... does it also mean ...we’re going to have to do less livestock farming? Are we going to have to eat less meat and consume less dairy?
Oh look David, these things will be worked out on the way through ...
That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) Sport Australia has told the Parliament today that it provided a brief to Senator McKenzie on 3 April 2019 recommending 245 sports projects be approved;
(b) Senator McKenzie wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 April, the day before he called the election, attaching a spreadsheet with projects she intended to approve by electorate, including party details;
(c) on 11 April, the day the Prime Minister called the election, Senator McKenzie provided a brief to Sport Australia dated 4 April approving 228 projects for funding;
(d) 73 per cent of projects approved by Senator McKenzie were not recommended by Sport Australia;
(e) Sport Australia received the approved sports rorts list from Senator McKenzie after the election had been called and after caretaker conventions had commenced;
(f) the Government approved a $50,000 grant to the Sans Souci Football Club in the Prime Minister's own electorate despite the fact the project had already been built, had already been officially opened and was therefore ineligible for funding; and
(g) the Prime Minister is the master chef of cooking the books;
(2) declares the Prime Minister has repeatedly misled the Parliament and he should have the integrity to correct the record as required by House practice; and
(3) calls on the Prime Minister to provide a full and frank account as to why he has used taxpayer money to advance his own Government's partisan political interests.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion immediately—That the House:
(1) notes:
(a) Sport Australia has told the Parliament today that it provided a brief to Senator McKenzie on 3 April 2019 recommending 245 sports projects be approved;
(b) Senator McKenzie wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 April, the day before he called the election, attaching a spreadsheet with projects she intended to approve by electorate, including party details;
(c) on 11 April, the day the Prime Minister called the election, Senator McKenzie provided a brief to Sport Australia dated 4 April approving 228 projects for funding;
(d) 73 per cent of projects approved by Senator McKenzie were not recommended by Sport Australia;
(e) Sport Australia received the approved sports rorts list from Senator McKenzie after the election had been called and after caretaker conventions had commenced;
(f) the Government approved a $50,000 grant to the Sans Souci Football Club in the Prime Minister's own electorate despite the fact the project had already been built, had already been officially opened and was therefore ineligible for funding; and
(g) the Prime Minister is the master chef of cooking the books;
(2) declares the Prime Minister has repeatedly misled the Parliament and he should have the integrity to correct the record as required by House practice; and
(3) calls on the Prime Minister to provide a full and frank account as to why he has used taxpayer money to advance his own Government's partisan political interests.
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:02]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That the Member be no longer heard.
The House divided. [15:05]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That the question be put.
The House divided. [15:08]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [15:13]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
Report relating to the consideration of bills introduced 24 to 27 February 2020.
1. The committee met in private session on Thursday, 27 February 2020.
2. The committee determined that the following referral of a bill to a committee be made—
Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy:
THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
27 February 2020
The need for the Government to apply the highest standards of due process and probity to spending decisions.
... whilst the majority of applications received related to projects located in a Coalition held electorate (55 per cent of all applications), the significant majority (some 82 per cent) of these were not approved for funding…
… whilst 40.3 per cent of all applications related to a project in an ALP held electorate, just under 60 per cent of approved projects were in an ALP held electorate.
In addition to the data originally provided by the department, two new columns were added to the worksheet to identify the electorate in which the project was located, and the political party that held that electorate.
… the Minister's Office used the spreadsheets ... to undertake a parallel assessment process as a basis for the Minister deciding which projects should be funded with additional analysis on 'marginal' electorates held by the Coalition as well as those electorates not held by the Coalition that were to be 'targeted' in the 2019 Election …
… … …
… projects located in electorates held by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Independent Members were more successful at being awarded funding than those located in electorates held by the Coalition parties.
Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2019
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2019
Student Identifiers Amendment (Higher Education) Bill 2019
Export Control Bill 2019
Export Control (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019
Export Charges (Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2019
Export Charges (Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2019
Export Charges (Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2019
Statute Update (Regulations References) Bill 2020
Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020
That the amendments be agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Zimmerman) took the chair at 10:00.
That the member no longer be heard.
That the Member be no longer heard.
That the Member be no longer heard.
That the Member be no longer heard.
1.
a) The ARC does not decide outcomes. Please refer to question 2.
b) 9 August 2019.
c) 26 September 2019.
d-e) Only eligible institutions can be applicants. It is up to the institutions when they advise researchers.
f) 17 October 2019.
2. The ARC submitted its funding recommendations through the Parliamentary Document Management System on 28 June 2019.
3. Refer to question 1b.
4. All applicants, including unsuccessful applicants, for the 2019 ARC Future Fellowships round were notified of their outcomes on 26 September 2019. The 2020 round opened for applications on 9 October 2019 and closed on 27 November 2019. The unsuccessful 2019 applicants were able to view their feedback on 17 October 2019.
5. The length of time it takes the ARC to process and assess applications depends on many factors including the number and complexity of applications received as well as the availability of expert panels to conduct assessments.
6. The level of detail required to respond to this question is not available.
7. On 16 October 2019, I introduced a new embargo process to notify administering organisations of their outcomes prior to the official announcement by the Government. This is ensuring that applicants are notified of their outcomes closer to the date of the funding decision than ever before.
Details of the new embargo process are published on the ARC website: https://www.arc.gov.au/news-publications/arc-grant-outcomes-under-embargo
This embargo process ensures administering organisations (mainly Australian universities) are advised of their outcomes in advance of the official announcement and can share their outcomes with the research team and partner organisations named within their applications.
Importantly, it also allows unsuccessful researchers to proceed with alternative plans for their research and careers, including preparing applications for new ARC scheme rounds, or seeking alternative sources of research funding and/or employment.
As part of the general streamlining of all ARC schemes, ARC has implemented a number of steps, including: